PDA

View Full Version : Gay couple sue B&B for discrimination.



hai
12-21-2011, 06:09 PM
http://www.kitv.com/news/30033841/detail.html

What say you.

Apache
12-21-2011, 06:16 PM
The B&B evidently broke the law...


As to the lawsuit, I think it's a quick-buck for the lezzies, BS move. They will ham it up for all it's worth...:rolleyes:

Bailey
12-21-2011, 06:24 PM
Its a shame people who own businesses have to be forced to allow such filth into their establishment. :mad:

Whatever happened to freedom of association?

Adam Wood
12-21-2011, 06:26 PM
The B&B evidently broke the law...


As to the lawsuit, I think it's a quick-buck for the lezzies, BS move. They will ham it up for all it's worth...:rolleyes:Spot on. Good Lord, what drama queens. "OMG it was sooooooo hurtful! We were soooooooo humiliated! Woe unto us for the pain we have suffered!! We mustn't let anyone else ever feel such sshhhaaaaaammmmmeeee!!!" *sob*

:rolleyes:

Good grief, woman. How can you possibly live in LA and still not be able to handle someone being an asshole to you? Cripes, it's a fucking art form in Southern California.

Bailey
12-21-2011, 06:28 PM
Spot on. Good Lord, what drama queens. "OMG it was sooooooo hurtful! We were soooooooo humiliated! Woe unto us for the pain we have suffered!! We mustn't let anyone else ever feel such sshhhaaaaaammmmmeeee!!!" *sob*

:rolleyes:

Good grief, woman. How can you possibly live in LA and still not be able to handle someone being an asshole to you? Cripes, it's a fucking art form in Southern California.

They should get an award for their act. :rolleyes:

hai
12-21-2011, 06:29 PM
Its a shame people who own businesses have to be forced to allow such filth into their establishment. :mad:

Whatever happened to freedom of association?

Well i read at one time it was ok to not serve African Americans or Hispanics.

Discrimination in any form is shameful,plus it's against the hawaii housing code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/3/28/515/515-2

Rockntractor
12-21-2011, 06:36 PM
Well i read at one time it was ok to not serve African Americans or Hispanics.


Cannibalism is illegal!:eek:

Adam Wood
12-21-2011, 07:10 PM
Cannibalism is illegal!:eek:

:lol:

hai
12-21-2011, 07:11 PM
Cannibalism is illegal!:eek:

I mean at one time,places had signs that said "whites only,blacks only" And any discrimination in any form is shameful.

Apache
12-21-2011, 07:49 PM
I mean at one time,places had signs that said "whites only,blacks only" And any discrimination in any form is shameful.

Bullshit!

Any form? Are you serious?

This is EXACTLY why we are where we are....:mad:


LIFE AIN'T FAIR.... Deal with it:rolleyes:

Apache
12-21-2011, 07:50 PM
Cannibalism is illegal!:eek:

That'll do pig. That'll do...:p

NJCardFan
12-21-2011, 08:01 PM
A private business should be free to serve to whomever they please. And yes, this goes for people of color. However, that door swings both ways. It's a private business after all. And this couple didn't have to patronize that B&B.

Bailey
12-21-2011, 08:06 PM
Well i read at one time it was ok to not serve African Americans or Hispanics.

Discrimination in any form is shameful,plus it's against the hawaii housing code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/3/28/515/515-2

Your color you can't choose who you have sex with you can.

Apache
12-21-2011, 08:06 PM
A private business should be free to serve to whomever they please. And yes, this goes for people of color. However, that door swings both ways. It's a private business after all. And this couple didn't have to patronize that B&B.

Totally agree! But where would the "wronged" couple get thier $$$$$?

Apache
12-21-2011, 08:08 PM
Your color you can't choose who you have sex with you can.

Thanks for blowing out my thinking trap....Jackass...:mad::p;)

NJCardFan
12-21-2011, 08:13 PM
Totally agree! But where would the "wronged" couple get thier $$$$$?

This case reminds me of the case in, I believe, Albuquerque where this lesbian couple actively sought out a Christian photographer and took them to court when they refused to photog their wedding. People like this are attention whores looking for the spotlight. We are no longer free in this country and those who tout that we are a democracy(which we aren't) always seem to lean toward minority rules when it comes to a lot of stuff.

Apache
12-21-2011, 08:19 PM
This case reminds me of the case in, I believe, Albuquerque where this lesbian couple actively sought out a Christian photographer and took them to court when they refused to photog their wedding. People like this are attention whores looking for the spotlight. We are no longer free in this country and those who tout that we are a democracy(which we aren't) always seem to lean toward minority rules when it comes to a lot of stuff.I'll say it again...

Turn around Pastor...:p

Bailey
12-21-2011, 08:20 PM
Thanks for blowing out my thinking trap....Jackass...:mad::p;)

Sorry :(

CueSi
12-21-2011, 08:25 PM
Well i read at one time it was ok to not serve African Americans or Hispanics.

Discrimination in any form is shameful,plus it's against the hawaii housing code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/3/28/515/515-2

There are lesbian owned b&b's that would never allow a male on the premises, even if he is gay/bi. So if they have the right, so should this couple.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
12-21-2011, 09:06 PM
Lots of posts about businesses being able to do what they want.

How about the fact that they broke the law? I thought people here were tough on crime and had no sympathy for criminals?

hai
12-21-2011, 09:09 PM
This case reminds me of the case in, I believe, Albuquerque where this lesbian couple actively sought out a Christian photographer and took them to court when they refused to photog their wedding. People like this are attention whores looking for the spotlight. We are no longer free in this country and those who tout that we are a democracy(which we aren't) always seem to lean toward minority rules when it comes to a lot of stuff.

Well we are a republic,not a democracy.

If we went by Majority rule,people would be still kept as slaves,women wouldn't be allowed the right to vote,and people of color would still be required to sit in the back of the bus and such.

During the American Civil War,it was actually only a minority who wanted slaves to be free,while the majority didn't. Same with Suffrage and such.

If we went by majority rule,i would be a slave,because i'm of mixed-race.

Bailey
12-21-2011, 09:11 PM
Lots of posts about businesses being able to do what they want.

How about the fact that they broke the law? I thought people here were tough on crime and had no sympathy for criminals?

Laws they had no say in making. Laws shouldnt take away freedoms.

CueSi
12-21-2011, 09:14 PM
Well we are a republic,not a democracy.

If we went by Majority rule,people would be still kept as slaves,women wouldn't be allowed the right to vote,and people of color would still be required to sit in the back of the bus and such.

During the American Civil War,it was actually only a minority who wanted slaves to be free,while the majority didn't. Same with Suffrage and such.

If we went by majority rule,i would be a slave,because i'm of mixed-race.

I didn't know Gallup existed during The Civil War. :p

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
12-21-2011, 09:17 PM
Laws they had no say in making. Laws shouldnt take away freedoms.

Whoa where did all this nuance come from?

I thought it was simple? If you break the law you are a criminal and you get no sympathy whatsoever.

You don't have to like the law, but the law is the law, if you don't like it you can work to change it but until then it's the law and you must obey it otherwise full force should come down on you without sympathy.

Why is this case different?

Bailey
12-21-2011, 09:20 PM
Whoa where did all this nuance come from?

I thought it was simple? If you break the law you are a criminal and you have sympathy whatsoever.

You don't have to like the law, but the law is the law, if you don't like it you can work to change it but until then it's the law and you must obey it otherwise full force should come down on you without sympathy.

Why is this case different?

BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. GET IT? Unless the gov gave me money to start a business they shouldn't have a say on whom I server and dont serve

Wei Wu Wei
12-21-2011, 09:22 PM
BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. GET IT? Unless the gov gave me money to start a business they shouldn't have a say on whom I server and dont serve

Yeah there may be freedom of association, but there's also laws concerning discrimination and if you break those laws you are a criminal and they should do whatever they have to do make you comply with the law.

Freedom of association isn't unlimited, is it?

Hawkgirl
12-21-2011, 10:07 PM
Attention Whores, they could have easily slept there by saying they were BFF's...why do they have to always throw in the gay card. No one cares who's orafice you stick your tongue into.

Teh Gay card, don't leave home without it. Survey says teh Gay card will soon outnumber the Race Card.

JB
12-22-2011, 05:54 PM
Whoa where did all this nuance come from?

I thought it was simple? If you break the law you are a criminal and you get no sympathy whatsoever.Yes, they broke the law. The secondary discussion is that the law shouldn't exist.

But since you feel this way, tell me, what is your opinion regarding that Shop-Rite a few years back that would not make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake? Were the people that wanted the cake discriminated against? Did Shop-Rite break the law?

Real American
12-22-2011, 06:45 PM
A private business should be free to serve to whomever they please. And yes, this goes for people of color. However, that door swings both ways. It's a private business after all. And this couple didn't have to patronize that B&B.

A private business is not 100 percent private if they serve the public. They should not be free to discriminate in any way.

JB
12-22-2011, 06:49 PM
A private business is not 100 percent private if they serve the public. They should not be free to discriminate in any way.So Shop Rite broke the law and should be punished?

Apache
12-22-2011, 08:43 PM
Lots of posts about businesses being able to do what they want.

How about the fact that they broke the law? I thought people here were tough on crime and had no sympathy for criminals?

Once again seeing what you want to...:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-22-2011, 09:49 PM
Well that was the argument I was hearing for months now everytime a protester got teargassed or pepper sprayed or flashbanged or shot with rubber bullets.

It's always the same argument "they broke the law, they didn't listen to police, therefore they get no sympathy when they get what they deserve". They may have said they have a constitutional right to assembly and that the laws that were being used to force these people out of the streets were infringements of those rights, but it fell on deaf ears.

Hypocrisy?

Novaheart
12-22-2011, 11:29 PM
As an owner occupied building of four units or less, this "bed and breakfast" which is actually a suburban home renting out room and serving bagels in the morning, would appear to be covered under the boarding house exception to the fair housing law.

I don't know if that would also apply to a public accommodation, but there appears to be a chance that this place was operating illegally anyway.

As Cue Si said, there are indeed places which either exclude people by sex or orientation. Most of these places have some kind of workaround in which they maintain that they are actually private clubs. As I recall, Sandals was promoting itself as a private club when it was sued for discrimination against gay people.

All that being said, the fact that there are gay-exclusive bed and breakfasts or resorts doesn't excuse this one if it's in violation of the law. It simply means that a straight couple suing someplace in Rehoboth Beach or Key West would be on equal ground.

However, my experience with gay resorts is that they do not tell straight people that they cannot rent a room, they tell them that if they do they need to understand that the resort is gay owned and operated and doesn't give refunds.

Novaheart
12-22-2011, 11:43 PM
I also think that if you are supposedly open to the public, but you want to discriminate, then you should have to publish your discrimination policy and abide by it. So if you want to exclude blacks, jews, and gays (the big three apparently) then it should be on your advertisements and registration materials. You can't just put gays on the ad, and then decide that it's No Jews Tuesday.

NJCardFan
12-22-2011, 11:50 PM
Yes, they broke the law. The secondary discussion is that the law shouldn't exist.

But since you feel this way, tell me, what is your opinion regarding that Shop-Rite a few years back that would not make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake? Were the people that wanted the cake discriminated against? Did Shop-Rite break the law?

Sorta off topic but that couple had their children taken from them. Little Adolf and his 3 siblings were pulled 2 years ago.

Novaheart
12-22-2011, 11:50 PM
Its a shame people who own businesses have to be forced to allow such filth into their establishment. :mad:

Whatever happened to freedom of association?

Public accommodations laws are some of the oldest on the planet. We have had laws which forbid renting rooms to unmarried persons, interracial couples, inebriates, persons of low character, prostitutes, single women (presumed to be prostitutes), soldiers, sailors, and the general catch-all of "running a disorderly house".

Novaheart
12-22-2011, 11:59 PM
Sorta off topic but that couple had their children taken from them. Little Adolf and his 3 siblings were pulled 2 years ago.

That's a tough one. They both look crazy as a shithouse rat. But apparently the state has no case, and yet is not returning the children. I have little doubt that these children would be better off raised by someone else, not because these people are or might be neo-nazis. There are plenty of extreme people in this world, and that doesn't mean they can't parent their own children, even if all those children would be better off raised by me or almost any passing stranger.

We simply can't make DCF decisions based on politics. If these parents are indeed mentally defective (and their eyes suggest they might be) then that's a reason. If they can't be diagnosed, then you have to give the kids back. We can't protect children from maybes, we have all we can do to protect the ones we know are being abused.

Odysseus
12-23-2011, 12:27 AM
A private business is not 100 percent private if they serve the public. They should not be free to discriminate in any way.
A bed and breakfast is usually a mom and pop operation, a private home that takes in temporary guests. It's not exactly a Marriott, and these people were being asked to take someone into their home that offends their sense of propriety and religious morality. If they don't have the right to say no to whom they decide to open their home to, then what rights do they have? This is why there are exceptions for boarding houses and other small properties.

Well that was the argument I was hearing for months now everytime a protester got teargassed or pepper sprayed or flashbanged or shot with rubber bullets.

It's always the same argument "they broke the law, they didn't listen to police, therefore they get no sympathy when they get what they deserve". They may have said they have a constitutional right to assembly and that the laws that were being used to force these people out of the streets were infringements of those rights, but it fell on deaf ears.

Hypocrisy?

No, stupidity, but on your part. Breaking laws against rioting, destruction of property, assault (sexual or otherwise) and otherwise violating public safety is not the same as not wanting to open your home to someone whose personal conduct violates your personal moral code. The actions of the B&B did not endanger anyone, and the state's compelling interest in enforcing the equal protection of the laws must be balanced against the privacy and property rights of a private home owner.


You can't just put gays on the ad, and then decide that it's No Jews Tuesday.

You want I should come back Wednesday?

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2011, 12:49 AM
No, stupidity, but on your part. Breaking laws against rioting, destruction of property, assault (sexual or otherwise) and otherwise violating public safety is not the same as not wanting to open your home to someone whose personal conduct violates your personal moral code. The actions of the B&B did not endanger anyone, and the state's compelling interest in enforcing the equal protection of the laws must be balanced against the privacy and property rights of a private home owner.



Yes :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QKjuLlW_BA

Look at all that rioting, look at the destruction of property, not to mention all of that sexual assault!

Or how about this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzak22Py8v8

Violent rioter? Savage rapist? Gun wielding property destroyer?
:rolleyes:

Here's one more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFyQ23LBvb0

It's hard to see because the camera guy is charging the police :rolleyes:

Odysseus
12-23-2011, 12:57 AM
Yes :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QKjuLlW_BA

Look at all that rioting, look at the destruction of property, not to mention all of that sexual assault!

Or how about this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzak22Py8v8

Violent rioter? Savage rapist? Gun wielding property destroyer?
:rolleyes:

Here's one more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFyQ23LBvb0

It's hard to see because the camera guy is charging the police :rolleyes:

Any excuse to show those videos again? If you weren't a complete jackass, I suspect that you'd have no personality at all.

Once again, the OWS protesters had spent weeks committing all manner of crimes against persons and property. The B&B owners endangered no one, and the only law that they broke was one that dictated what they could do with their home. Arguing property rights with a Marxist is like arguing about the merits of bacon with an orthodox rabbi.

NJCardFan
12-23-2011, 11:57 AM
That's a tough one. They both look crazy as a shithouse rat. But apparently the state has no case, and yet is not returning the children. I have little doubt that these children would be better off raised by someone else, not because these people are or might be neo-nazis. There are plenty of extreme people in this world, and that doesn't mean they can't parent their own children, even if all those children would be better off raised by me or almost any passing stranger.

We simply can't make DCF decisions based on politics. If these parents are indeed mentally defective (and their eyes suggest they might be) then that's a reason. If they can't be diagnosed, then you have to give the kids back. We can't protect children from maybes, we have all we can do to protect the ones we know are being abused.

Agreed. DYFS completely over stepped it's bounds on this one, however, the reason they gave was alleged domestic violence. But here's what has me scratching my ass in confusion. They won't give the children back to this couple, however, there are countless cases where kids are given back to the scumbag parents. The one I have is going to end up back with his family even though this time was the 3rd time this woman had her children taken from her.

MrsSmith
12-23-2011, 12:29 PM
I mean at one time,places had signs that said "whites only,blacks only" And any discrimination in any form is shameful. Including discrimination against religious beliefs, right? This was written into the very first law of the country, remember?

MrsSmith
12-23-2011, 12:35 PM
Yes :rolleyes:


Look at all that rioting, look at the destruction of property, not to mention all of that sexual assault!

Or how about this guy:


Violent rioter? Savage rapist? Gun wielding property destroyer?
:rolleyes:

Here's one more:

It's hard to see because the camera guy is charging the police :rolleyes:

You do realize that one of the protesters admitted that they surrounded the police, refused to let them through, and refused to move, right? And all the police did in return was to pepper spray them until they moved. No one was shot, no one was beaten up. When people sit in public areas and threaten to assault police officers, security personnel, and all conservatives in general, some of them are going to end up in trouble. :D

You also realize that YouTube is full of videos of the damage protesters did, everything from busting windows to spray painting buildings to shoving little old ladies down staircases. If you wanted to make your point, you FAILED. :D

Novaheart
12-23-2011, 12:39 PM
Including discrimination against religious beliefs, right? This was written into the very first law of the country, remember?

The First Amendment protection for religious belief and affiliation is a protection from the government. For the first 150 years or so, it was perfectly legal for businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of race and religion. It still is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, apparently.

Mind you, I think that there should be a threshold under which a business is free to discriminate. I think that if you want to discriminate at a motel that you own, you should be free to do so as long as your policy is printed and posted on your front door and any advertising you buy. People should not see a billboard on 95 only to discover that the motel excludes them. So if you want to run Mrs. Smith's motel, then your billboard on 95 needs to have prominently posted, "We discriminate on the basis of our religious beliefs." or simply "No Quars Allowed".

hai
12-24-2011, 03:16 PM
Thank goodness we can discuss differing viewpoints on here,because i been to Free republic,and they don't allow differing viewpoints. I wonder if Jim Rob ever heard of freedom of speech.

Apache
12-24-2011, 03:27 PM
Thank goodness we can discuss differing viewpoints on here,because i been to Free republic,and they don't allow differing viewpoints. I wonder if Jim Rob ever heard of freedom of speech.

His site, his rules. The First Amendment doesn't apply...

MrsSmith
12-24-2011, 03:53 PM
The First Amendment protection for religious belief and affiliation is a protection from the government. For the first 150 years or so, it was perfectly legal for businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of race and religion. It still is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, apparently.

Mind you, I think that there should be a threshold under which a business is free to discriminate. I think that if you want to discriminate at a motel that you own, you should be free to do so as long as your policy is printed and posted on your front door and any advertising you buy. People should not see a billboard on 95 only to discover that the motel excludes them. So if you want to run Mrs. Smith's motel, then your billboard on 95 needs to have prominently posted, "We discriminate on the basis of our religious beliefs." or simply "No Quars Allowed".

Hotels should also have to advertise all their other "discriminatory" practices, right? They won't rent rooms to people that are too young, for one thing. My 19 year old son, coming home from his military base, ended up driving through 26 hours because he couldn't find a motel or hotel that would rent to him.

They should also have to advertise that they discriminate on the basis of cash. You can't get a room if you don't have a credit card. Cash only = no room.

The First Amendment says that government is outside it's rights when a law is written and enforced that infringes on religious beliefs....like the laws that silence religious speech, for example. This is just one further step government has taken to infringe religious rights, the insistance that Christian businesses are forced to embrace homosexual behavior on their property, abortion costs for their employees, etc.

Novaheart
12-24-2011, 09:29 PM
Hotels should also have to advertise all their other "discriminatory" practices, right? They won't rent rooms to people that are too young, for one thing. My 19 year old son, coming home from his military base, ended up driving through 26 hours because he couldn't find a motel or hotel that would rent to him.

What is the difference between discriminating against people because they are gay or because they are military, especially now that the two are not mutually exclusive? If two soldiers with the same surname want to rent one room, is it the motel owners business if they are married or if they simply happened to meet in boot camp and have the same name?

Most nondiscrimination laws, despite anything Rockintractor would like to believe are based in racial discrimination policies and laws. They piggy back on the 14th amendment protections for black people. Obviously the 14th Amendment wasn't designed for the protection of people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, age, or religion, as discrimination in these categories continued into our own time and continues today.

So it's pretty much all or nothing. Either you can refuse to rent to blacks, jews, gays, and military, or you can't. Which is it?

MrsSmith
12-24-2011, 10:29 PM
What is the difference between discriminating against people because they are gay or because they are military, especially now that the two are not mutually exclusive? If two soldiers with the same surname want to rent one room, is it the motel owners business if they are married or if they simply happened to meet in boot camp and have the same name?

Most nondiscrimination laws, despite anything Rockintractor would like to believe are based in racial discrimination policies and laws. They piggy back on the 14th amendment protections for black people. Obviously the 14th Amendment wasn't designed for the protection of people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, age, or religion, as discrimination in these categories continued into our own time and continues today.

So it's pretty much all or nothing. Either you can refuse to rent to blacks, jews, gays, and military, or you can't. Which is it?

As I mentioned, they can discriminate for reasons of age and lack of credit, without advertising or facing lawsuits. The government has no basis to force them to accept those whose behavior is contrary to Christian ethics.

Novaheart
12-25-2011, 01:47 AM
The government has no basis to force them to accept those whose behavior is contrary to Christian ethics.

As much as I disagree with it in principle, the government does have a basis and a reason for laws against discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, etc...

It's a very basic reason: citizenship and being a nation. This country, and its merchants, have demonstrated both the willingness and ability to have institutional policies of discrimination which effective create permanent lower classes or castes. Those castes, have traditionally been drawn on ethnic lines, which creates a permanent underclass, multiple nations within a single country. This is a recipe for struggle, violence, and war.

It has long been established that if society has a compelling need or reason to limit a right, then it can be done without undoing the entire constitution. We can argue about how many of those threads can be pulled before it unravels, but the construct of public accommodations being nondiscriminatory is not causing irreparable harm to the right of freedom of association. No one is requiring some backwoods Christian to accept modern society or to change his religions as a result of it, the government has merely said that if you are going to be a public accommodation, then you can't discriminate.

BTW- it is indeed illegal to discriminate against an adult because he is too young or two old. It simply isn't often worth the time to pursue it. There is no national organization which specializes in suing motels for age discrimination the way there is for race discrimination.

Hawkgirl
12-25-2011, 09:52 AM
Business' can discriminate. Southwest kicked a woman off their plane because she was dressed "slutty" and didn't fit into their family friendly policy.

Tipsycatlover
12-25-2011, 10:09 AM
Why can't a B&B discriminate against gays when gay resorts and hotels can and do discriminate against heterosexuals? They can even advertise that they discriminate.

AmPat
12-25-2011, 11:30 AM
I saw many signs that say;
"No shirt, No Shoes, No Service."

I say that is discrimination! I demand to show my hairy taters and stinky feet! Where is the Anti Christian Liberal Union?:mad::eek:

Novaheart
12-26-2011, 12:04 PM
Why can't a B&B discriminate against gays when gay resorts and hotels can and do discriminate against heterosexuals? .

The question would be valid if an heterosexual couple had sued a gay resort for discrimination and a court had ruled in favor of the gay resort. Has that happened? If not, then what are you basing your declaration on?


They can even advertise that they discriminate.

Do you have an example of this? I feel certain that you are going to find an ad for an "all male resort" or "all female resort". While I think that stating a preference like that would be actionable, it certain would be if you had an ad that said "all white resort", I think the chances of it being litigated are somewhat slim, and they would simply stop doing it. There is a difference between "gay resort" and "no heterosexuals allowed". There is a difference between something being legal and something which is rarely litigated.

But your statements suggest that you believe that the law has exceptions for gay people in discrimination. Now in a sense it does. In states where it's legal to discriminate against gay people, then one can hardly argue that it's also illegal to discriminate against straight people. But in states where discrimination is illegal, there is no exception for gay people discriminating against straight people.

Tipsycatlover
12-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Most gay resorts in Palm Springs advertise that they are male gay only. More than that! They won't let in lesbians!

Look up a few, you may have someplace to spend your next vacation.

I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with any hotel, B&B or resort discriminating. They should do MORE of it not less. If a business wants to target gays as a clientele, by all means they should be allowed to do that. ALL businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Just make sure discriminatory policies are prominently displayed in advertising.

Odysseus
12-26-2011, 05:16 PM
As much as I disagree with it in principle, the government does have a basis and a reason for laws against discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, etc...

It's a very basic reason: citizenship and being a nation. This country, and its merchants, have demonstrated both the willingness and ability to have institutional policies of discrimination which effective create permanent lower classes or castes. Those castes, have traditionally been drawn on ethnic lines, which creates a permanent underclass, multiple nations within a single country. This is a recipe for struggle, violence, and war.

You've got it backwards, at least here in America. The vast majority of discrimination issues went away when the segregation laws were repealed and the various state governments stopped throwing their weight behind them. Most businesses don't want to discriminate against their customers, and only did so when the force of law gave them no alternative. The soda jerks at segregated lunch counters didn't make the policy, and neither did the hotel owners, bus drivers or other businesses that were forced to follow the law.


It has long been established that if society has a compelling need or reason to limit a right, then it can be done without undoing the entire constitution. We can argue about how many of those threads can be pulled before it unravels, but the construct of public accommodations being nondiscriminatory is not causing irreparable harm to the right of freedom of association. No one is requiring some backwoods Christian to accept modern society or to change his religions as a result of it, the government has merely said that if you are going to be a public accommodation, then you can't discriminate.
So, if good order, discipline, unit cohesion and all of the other reasons that the armed forces gave for keeping DADT in place are compelling reasons, then it should have been kept?


BTW- it is indeed illegal to discriminate against an adult because he is too young or two old. It simply isn't often worth the time to pursue it. There is no national organization which specializes in suing motels for age discrimination the way there is for race discrimination.

Actually, it isn't. Try to enlist in the army at sixteen, or drive a car at twelve. As you said, when there is a compelling interest, it is permissible. There are even places where a job might require a person of a particular race or gender. For example, if I were a casting agent, I'd be a damned fool if I didn't specify the ethnicity and gender of the actors that I needed for a role. A white Othello would not be appropriate, now would it?

NJCardFan
12-26-2011, 05:30 PM
BTW- it is indeed illegal to discriminate against an adult because he is too young or two old. It simply isn't often worth the time to pursue it. There is no national organization which specializes in suing motels for age discrimination the way there is for race discrimination.
Incorrect. Most law enforcement agencies have an age cap of 35. Even though my department had no age restriction like that, the Police/Fire pension does and caps at 35. We've been trying to fight them for years to no avail. The reason why we're fighting is because it's a 16% difference in pension payouts for the same job.

Novaheart
12-27-2011, 12:52 AM
So, if good order, discipline, unit cohesion and all of the other reasons that the armed forces gave for keeping DADT in place are compelling reasons, then it should have been kept?



It was decided over your head that they weren't.





Actually, it isn't.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I meant age discrimination within the age of majority and by public accommodations.


There are even places where a job might require a person of a particular race or gender. For example, if I were a casting agent, I'd be a damned fool if I didn't specify the ethnicity and gender of the actors that I needed for a role. A white Othello would not be appropriate, now would it?

I have always thought that was an unresolved aspect/impact of the law. Apparently, it hasn't been litigated, or if it was then the person suing for discrimination in that lost.

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 05:03 PM
It was decided over your head that they weren't.
And yet, nobody ever presented any empirical evidence in support of that decision. Go figure.

Hawkgirl
12-27-2011, 06:03 PM
And yet, nobody ever presented any empirical evidence in support of that decision. Go figure.

No, it was just the right, er, I mean PC thing to do.

Novaheart
12-28-2011, 02:01 PM
And yet, nobody ever presented any empirical evidence in support of that decision. Go figure.

You forgot to mention the horror of gang showers. You are slipping.

Odysseus
12-29-2011, 10:04 AM
You forgot to mention the horror of gang showers. You are slipping.

No, I wear non-skid flipflops.

Novaheart
12-29-2011, 08:26 PM
No, I wear non-skid flipflops.

But do you agree that whatever savings there might have been in the use of gang showers by institutions (not just the military) was paid for with the dignity and modesty of a nation?



I don't get it. Some people seem to really enjoy being naked together. We had this group of guys at the Aspen Hill Racquet Club who played Wallyball on Tuesday nights. They spent one hour playing Wallyball and two hours hanging out naked. After the game, they would take a shower. Then they would all go get in the giant whirlpool (about 8 ft. wide by 12 ft. long). One of them would have gone upstairs and gotten a couple of pitchers of beer , which they drank while they were hanging out in the hot tub. Then they would all take another shower, groom, and eventually get dressed. This is something like ten guys every week.

Tipsycatlover
12-30-2011, 09:18 AM
But do you agree that whatever savings there might have been in the use of gang showers by institutions (not just the military) was paid for with the dignity and modesty of a nation?



I don't get it. Some people seem to really enjoy being naked together. We had this group of guys at the Aspen Hill Racquet Club who played Wallyball on Tuesday nights. They spent one hour playing Wallyball and two hours hanging out naked. After the game, they would take a shower. Then they would all go get in the giant whirlpool (about 8 ft. wide by 12 ft. long). One of them would have gone upstairs and gotten a couple of pitchers of beer , which they drank while they were hanging out in the hot tub. Then they would all take another shower, groom, and eventually get dressed. This is something like ten guys every week.

Aren't you gay?

A bunch of guys who want to hang out naked together should kinda be expected.

Odysseus
12-30-2011, 02:43 PM
But do you agree that whatever savings there might have been in the use of gang showers by institutions (not just the military) was paid for with the dignity and modesty of a nation?
Possibly, but it's not something that I've really dwelt on.

I don't get it. Some people seem to really enjoy being naked together. We had this group of guys at the Aspen Hill Racquet Club who played Wallyball on Tuesday nights. They spent one hour playing Wallyball and two hours hanging out naked. After the game, they would take a shower. Then they would all go get in the giant whirlpool (about 8 ft. wide by 12 ft. long). One of them would have gone upstairs and gotten a couple of pitchers of beer , which they drank while they were hanging out in the hot tub. Then they would all take another shower, groom, and eventually get dressed. This is something like ten guys every week.

For most people, being naked with a bunch of others of the same sex in a gym or similar setting is a necessary evil. Most people don't enjoy it, and those that do are out of the mainstream.

AmPat
12-30-2011, 02:59 PM
Aren't you gay?

A bunch of guys who want to hang out naked together should kinda be expected.

I wouldn't want to hang out with Lothar The Meat Gazer for any reason.:eek:

hai
01-01-2012, 08:19 PM
http://www.kitv.com/news/30111374/detail.html

Of course hawaii still has a way to go,people still seem heteronormative in hawaii.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Heteronormative

Because the assumption that someone will grow up and marry a person of the opposite gender is one of the worst types of prejudices,right next to appreciating the achievements of white people in music,but not paying attention to the achivements of people of color.

Odysseus
01-02-2012, 10:47 AM
http://www.kitv.com/news/30111374/detail.html

Of course hawaii still has a way to go,people still seem heteronormative in hawaii.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Heteronormative

Because the assumption that someone will grow up and marry a person of the opposite gender is one of the worst types of prejudices,right next to appreciating the achievements of white people in music,but not paying attention to the achivements of people of color.

Wow. That's really out there. Two percent of the population is gay, but assuming that someone is part of the remaining 98% at birth until otherwise confirmed is prejudice?

What color is the sky in your world?

Bailey
01-02-2012, 10:50 AM
I would rent out to them and just put so much anti gay posters in their rooms. Just make it un pleasurable for them as possible or is there a law where you have to be PC to their kind?

Odysseus
01-02-2012, 11:09 AM
I would rent out to them and just put so much anti gay posters in their rooms. Just make it un pleasurable for them as possible or is there a law where you have to be PC to their kind?

That would actually constitute a torte, since you are renting to them, but actively working to impede their enjoyment of the facilities. It's also wrong, since you're taking their money but not providing the service. Freedom of association is one thing, fraud and harassment are another.

noonwitch
01-03-2012, 10:21 AM
Do straight people stay at Bed and Breakfasts? Aren't they kind of gay by nature?



Granted, the only B/B owner I personally know owns a B/B in Saugatuck, and would not still be in business if she were to deny rooms to gays.

Bailey
01-03-2012, 10:38 AM
That would actually constitute a torte, since you are renting to them, but actively working to impede their enjoyment of the facilities. It's also wrong, since you're taking their money but not providing the service. Freedom of association is one thing, fraud and harassment are another.

well they are getting a bed and a breakfast, nothing says it has to be a perfect bed and breakfast :D

Novaheart
01-03-2012, 11:17 AM
Wow. That's really out there. Two percent of the population is gay, but assuming that someone is part of the remaining 98% at birth until otherwise confirmed is prejudice?

What color is the sky in your world?

Two percent of the US population is Jewish, but quite a national accommodation is made for their sensitivities.

Novaheart
01-03-2012, 11:21 AM
Do straight people stay at Bed and Breakfasts? Aren't they kind of gay by nature?



Granted, the only B/B owner I personally know owns a B/B in Saugatuck, and would not still be in business if she were to deny rooms to gays.

I've always thought of Bed And Breakfasts a little precious at best and at worst like paying to spend the weekend at your grandparents' house. Maybe when B&B's were cheaper than hotels it made sense on some level, but for the prices they charge, I want TV, privacy, a pool, anonymity, room service, a better bathroom than I have at home, and room service.

The truth be told, I like my travel trailer best.

Rockntractor
01-03-2012, 11:22 AM
Two percent of the US population is Jewish, but quite a national accommodation is made for their sensitivities.

You only fool yourself when you think your preferred method of ejaculation compares to peoples ethnic origin.

AmPat
01-03-2012, 11:38 AM
Do straight people stay at Bed and Breakfasts? Aren't they kind of gay by nature?



Granted, the only B/B owner I personally know owns a B/B in Saugatuck, and would not still be in business if she were to deny rooms to gays.

The Queen Mary is a B&B. Despite the Queen part, I don't believe it screams gay at all.:confused:

NJCardFan
01-03-2012, 08:42 PM
Do straight people stay at Bed and Breakfasts? Aren't they kind of gay by nature?



Granted, the only B/B owner I personally know owns a B/B in Saugatuck, and would not still be in business if she were to deny rooms to gays.

Wife and I stayed at a very nice one in Ohio a couple years back.