PDA

View Full Version : BC B&B owners must pay gay couple $4,500 in "damages" for refusing room



Hubie
07-20-2012, 12:14 AM
It won't be long before we start seeing this crap in the States.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-bb-owners-ordered-to-pay-gay-couple-4500-in-damages


GRAND FORKS, British Columbia, July 19, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in British Columbia have been ordered to pay around $4,500 in damages after they refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple.

Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie had reserved a room at the Riverbend B&B in Grand Forks in June 2009, but owners Les and Susan Molnar cancelled the reservation after realizing they were homosexual.

“To allow a gay couple to share a bed in my Christian home would violate my Christian beliefs and would cause me and my wife great distress,” Lee explained in tribunal documents.

Thomas and Eadie filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in their favour on Tuesday. Tribunal member Enid Marion ordered the Molnars to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct,” though they closed the B&B down in September 2009 as a result of the incident.

Marion agreed with the two men that the Molnars violated section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which states that it is a discriminatory practice to “deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation” because of “sexual orientation.”

He ordered them to pay each man $1,500 for damages to “dignity, feelings and self-respect,” in addition to their travel expenses and lost wages for the tribunal proceedings.

“Having entered into the commercial sphere, the Molnars, like other business people, were required to comply with the laws of the province ... that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Marion.

Don't be fooled. This is what the fight for gay "marriage" is actually about: forcing everyone, particularly Christians, to agree with homosexuality or face fines or even imprisonment (like a pastor in Sweden did a while ago).

NJCardFan
07-20-2012, 11:39 AM
What damages can there be? And whatever happened to "I reserve the right"?

Generation Why?
07-20-2012, 11:51 AM
I don't know Canada's laws but this surely wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) fly here in America. Private business reserves the right. That simple.

Novaheart
07-20-2012, 12:34 PM
It won't be long before we start seeing this crap in the States.





Don't be fooled. This is what the fight for gay "marriage" is actually about: forcing everyone, particularly Christians, to agree with homosexuality or face fines or even imprisonment (like a pastor in Sweden did a while ago).

US law has an exemption for owner occupied dwellings and boarding houses. So much for your drama.

Novaheart
07-20-2012, 12:35 PM
What damages can there be? And whatever happened to "I reserve the right"?

Is a hotel reservation a contract?

Novaheart
07-20-2012, 12:41 PM
I don't know Canada's laws but this surely wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) fly here in America. Private business reserves the right. That simple.

It depends on the size and nature of the business. As a rule, public accommodations are prohibited from discriminating, especially selectively. I'm willing to bet that this B&B has rented a room to two adults of the same sex in the past. As such, their decision to deny a room to these two men based on their religion would seem selective and discriminatory. But if the B&B is small enough then it's probably legal. If, however, their refusal came inconveniently close to the expected time of occupancy, then you are dealing with a broken contract and possible damages.

noonwitch
07-20-2012, 01:10 PM
Is a hotel reservation a contract?


Only if you give them your credit card number.:friendly_wink:
I don't think most hotels are going to look twice at whether the couple renting the room are a gay couple, or just two friends who are traveling together.

I've never stayed in a B&B, because I don't pay to stay somewhere in which I have to share a bathroom with the other guests. I know someone who owns one in Saugatuck, MI, and she'd be bankrupt in a month if she banned gays from her establishment, being as it is in Saugatuck and all.

I have mixed feelings on this one-on one hand, I support the rights of gays to have the same rights I have. On the other hand, I also think that a business owner has the right to refuse service to customers. My friend advertises in gay magazines, because she doesn't have any issues with gays and knows her market. My advice to gays would be to look for B&Bs that advertise in gay magazines. If the one you see advertised in a mainstream publication has a Jesus fish in the ad, it's probably not one that you want to stay at.

Odysseus
07-20-2012, 02:00 PM
US law has an exemption for owner occupied dwellings and boarding houses. So much for your drama.

First off, the vast majority of these actions will be in state courts, so while US Law may have an exemption, the states may or may not. Second, just because the law has that exemption now doesn't mean that it will always remain on the books. DADT was the law until last year. When the change is proposed, we can count on activists to agitate for it, even as they now claim not to have that intent. After all, thirty years ago, nobody took the idea of gays serving openly seriously, and gay marriage was something that the gay activists swore up and down that they would never impose. We get the incremental approach, honest.


It depends on the size and nature of the business. As a rule, public accommodations are prohibited from discriminating, especially selectively. I'm willing to bet that this B&B has rented a room to two adults of the same sex in the past. As such, their decision to deny a room to these two men based on their religion would seem selective and discriminatory. But if the B&B is small enough then it's probably legal. If, however, their refusal came inconveniently close to the expected time of occupancy, then you are dealing with a broken contract and possible damages.

Or, they may not have rented to two adults of the same sex. You're speculating without any evidence. The only facts that we have at our disposal are that they cancelled the reservation when they found out that it was a gay couple, and that they had a religious objection to them in their own home.

Novaheart
07-20-2012, 02:30 PM
I have mixed feelings on this one-on one hand, I support the rights of gays to have the same rights I have. On the other hand, I also think that a business owner has the right to refuse service to customers.

As do I. That's what Rand Paul was talking about when he said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and presumably subsequent rulings) was contrary to our Civil Rights under the Constitution. We are supposed to have freedom of association and the Constitution does not to my knowledge say "except when engaging in business". The courts have nonetheless found an exception for "public accommodations" as has Congress.

Novaheart
07-20-2012, 02:39 PM
The only facts that we have at our disposal are that they cancelled the reservation when they found out that it was a gay couple, and that they had a religious objection to them in their own home.

I don't have paying guests in my home, do you? The court said that this is a business. Donald Trump can live in his apartment at The Plaza (or whatever) and it doesn't convert the building to a private residence. In the US, the operative fact (not covered in this article) would be the number of units in the Mennonite B&B.

The people who owned this place in question tried to maintain that it was "a ministry". Don't piss on the court;s head.

Hubie
07-20-2012, 03:24 PM
US law has an exemption for owner occupied dwellings and boarding houses. So much for your drama.

Do not underestimate the gall of radical homosexuals in this country, their supporters, and activist judges. All it takes is one judge to declare that exemption unconstitutional. It's not drama, jackhole. It's knowing what these people are like and are capable of after example upon example upon example over the last 20 years.

Generation Why?
07-20-2012, 04:07 PM
Do not underestimate the gall of radical homosexuals in this country, their supporters, and activist judges. All it takes is one judge to declare that exemption unconstitutional. It's not drama, jackhole. It's knowing what these people are like and are capable of after example upon example upon example over the last 20 years.

Are homosexuals out to ruin our civilaztion or do they simply want the same rights and privelages you and I have?

Bailey
07-20-2012, 05:53 PM
Are homosexuals out to ruin our civilaztion or do they simply want the same rights and privelages you and I have?

For the 1000th time THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS US STRAIGHTS.

Hubie
07-20-2012, 11:16 PM
Are homosexuals out to ruin our civilaztion or do they simply want the same rights and privelages you and I have?

Geez louise, get a spellchecker. Most modern browsers either have one built in or you can download a browser add-on.

In any case, homosexuals have all the rights everyone else does. I can marry a member of the opposite sex (and have, in fact) and so can they. I can't marry a member of the same sex and neither can they. How is that not equal?

Odysseus
07-21-2012, 01:11 PM
As do I. That's what Rand Paul was talking about when he said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and presumably subsequent rulings) was contrary to our Civil Rights under the Constitution. We are supposed to have freedom of association and the Constitution does not to my knowledge say "except when engaging in business". The courts have nonetheless found an exception for "public accommodations" as has Congress.
The courts have no business finding exceptions to laws that aren't written into the laws. They should interpret, not create, law.

I don't have paying guests in my home, do you?
What I charge my kids for room and board is none of your business. :evil-grin:


The court said that this is a business. Donald Trump can live in his apartment at The Plaza (or whatever) and it doesn't convert the building to a private residence. In the US, the operative fact (not covered in this article) would be the number of units in the Mennonite B&B.

The people who owned this place in question tried to maintain that it was "a ministry". Don't piss on the court;s head.

The courts can say whatever they like, but what does the law say? And, as you pointed out before, the right to freedom of association does not exempt businesses. In a free society, financial transactions are voluntary. If the people running that B&B wish to deny themselves business based on their personal religious convictions, they are punishing themselves with the loss of revenue. Let's reverse the roles for a moment. Should a gay couple running a B&B be forced to rent a room to an evangelical couple who will spend their time loudly prosletyzing to the owners and their other guests? For that matter, should an African American family be obligated to rent to KKK members (and if so, does the burning cross on the lawn constitute free speech)? I wouldn't impose a family of Nazis on a Jewish B&B, and I wouldn't want to rent from a Nazi, either. Why do you demand that everybody not only accommodate you, but embrace and exalt you? Don't you see the pathology behind that need for approval?

Novaheart
07-21-2012, 04:07 PM
The courts have no business finding exceptions to laws that aren't written into the laws. They should interpret, not create, law.

Many would say that they agree with you, until it's pointed out to them that "restricted neighborhood" wasn't simply a refusal to rent or sell to blacks that it also applied to ethnicities and religious identities.

Novaheart
07-21-2012, 04:17 PM
Should a gay couple running a B&B be forced to rent a room to an evangelical couple who will spend their time loudly prosletyzing to the owners and their other guests? For that matter, should an African American family be obligated to rent to KKK members (and if so, does the burning cross on the lawn constitute free speech)? I wouldn't impose a family of Nazis on a Jewish B&B, and I wouldn't want to rent from a Nazi, either. Why do you demand that everybody not only accommodate you, but embrace and exalt you? Don't you see the pathology behind that need for approval?

We need to keep it apples to apples. Simply being gay does not compare to being obnoxious. Being Jewish doesn't mean that you will walk around engaging in a stereotype. Being black doesn't mean that you will be tapo dancing and rapping. An evangelical couple being respectful of the space of the other guests and the owner is not the same as one who is walking about asking everyone if he has heard the word or if he's aware that he's going to Hell.

As for the invocation of "couple" and "family", it's irrelevant. If you are operating a business then it's a business. The von Trapp family runs a ski lodge, they don't have the right to refuse to rent to people named Hitler or people named Goldberg. We can agree on the principle of freedom of association but the recurring theme in these objections is that it;s OK to discriminate against gay people but not Jews or Blacks. Since we aren't going to live to see a restoration of the right to discriminate against Blacks and Jews, then singling out Gay people is not acceptable either.

Novaheart
07-21-2012, 04:19 PM
I can't marry a member of the same sex and neither can they. How is that not equal?

I love the smell of stupid in the afternoon.

Hubie
07-21-2012, 04:23 PM
I love the smell of stupid in the afternoon.

So in other words, it's equal and you have no legitimate argument to counter it.

Retread
07-21-2012, 04:46 PM
I love the smell of stupid in the afternoon.


So in other words, it's equal and you have no legitimate argument to counter it.

You got it. What's s/he's smelling is right under his/her nose.

NJCardFan
07-21-2012, 11:25 PM
I don't know Canada's laws but this surely wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) fly here in America. Private business reserves the right. That simple.

Oh? (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/06/06/christian-studio-cant-refuse-to-photograph-lesbian-couple-cour/)

NJCardFan
07-21-2012, 11:28 PM
Are homosexuals out to ruin our civilaztion or do they simply want the same rights and privelages you and I have?

Name me one right that I have that they don't have? I'll wait.

Odysseus
07-21-2012, 11:35 PM
Many would say that they agree with you, until it's pointed out to them that "restricted neighborhood" wasn't simply a refusal to rent or sell to blacks that it also applied to ethnicities and religious identities.

So, the popularity of an idea trumps its Constitutionality? Unfortunately, that can go the other way, too. That's why we have a painful amendment process that restricts the passions of the majority.


We need to keep it apples to apples. Simply being gay does not compare to being obnoxious. Being Jewish doesn't mean that you will walk around engaging in a stereotype. Being black doesn't mean that you will be tap dancing and rapping. An evangelical couple being respectful of the space of the other guests and the owner is not the same as one who is walking about asking everyone if he has heard the word or if he's aware that he's going to Hell.

Reaching a bit, there, aren't you? It has nothing to do with being obnoxious, although I've met more than my share of obnoxiously out gays. But, again, you are evading the central issue. Let's try a more concrete example: Several years ago, a group of Nazis got a permit to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a large Jewish population and a high percentage of Holocaust survivors. Now, let's say that Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg, formerly of Germany, run a B&B, and they take a reservation from someone who shows up with Nazi regalia in his luggage, and who leaves the premises the morning of the march in full Nazi dress. Can they inform him that he is no longer welcome in their B&B and direct him to remove his belongings and find another lodging? What are their options under your rather restrictive rules of business? What rights do they have? Please explain.


As for the invocation of "couple" and "family", it's irrelevant. If you are operating a business then it's a business.

First, I wasn't "invoking" families and couples, I was simply using the terms, and didn't think that they were controversial. OTOH, I find it telling that you do. As for running a business, one of the things that people who don't run businesses never seem to understand is that property is property, and it's none of the government's business as to what you do with it, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. The issue here is whether there is a right to rent a room from someone who doesn't want to rent to you. You seem to think that the government can compel people to enter into business transactions based on political criteria, but you never seem to realize that a government that can compel those transactions can also forbid them. The power that gives a government the authority to enforce laws that mandate private policies is the same power that it used to enforce Jim Crow.


The von Trapp family runs a ski lodge, they don't have the right to refuse to rent to people named Hitler or people named Goldberg.

Why? Can't you accept that the Von Trapp family might not want to rent to Nazis? Why must they be forced to provide services to people who want to destroy them, or whom they believe want to destroy them? And if they have the right to deny entry to Hitler, then they also have the right to deny entry to me. The world is full of bigoted, benighted and clueless people, and the fastest way to gain sympathy for them and promote their bigotries is to turn them into martyrs to Political Correctness.


We can agree on the principle of freedom of association but the recurring theme in these objections is that it;s OK to discriminate against gay people but not Jews or Blacks. Since we aren't going to live to see a restoration of the right to discriminate against Blacks and Jews, then singling out Gay people is not acceptable either.

How do you know that we won't see those restored? Do you have a crystal ball? In Europe, antisemitism is on the rise. The British have stopped teaching about the Holocaust in their public schools, because of the objections of the parents of Muslim students. I didn't think that we'd see that in my lifetime, but it's happened, and continues to happen. So, let's not use prognostications regarding what may or may not return. It's irrelevant. The issue is that when you accept that businesses can be forced to engage in transactions against their will, whether for trivial reasons or substantial ones, then you destroy one of the most basic freedoms that makes business possible in the first place. Businesses cannot exist in an atmosphere of coercion. The fundamental premise of a free market is freedom to engage in voluntary transactions. Take that away and you have the basis of a command economy.

If gays want to publicize the policies of a B&B, engage in legal, non-violent protests and boycotts and that result in a drop in its revenues that forces it to reevaluate its policies, then they have that right. Use the legal means at your disposal to change minds, to persuade and advocate and if you can do it, more power to you, but do you really want the full weight of the law to dictate who we must rent to? Do you want the state to have that much power over your business? Or over your life? Is that really the kind of world that you want to live in?

txradioguy
07-22-2012, 05:56 AM
Do you want the state to have that much power over your business? Or over your life? Is that really the kind of world that you want to live in?

As long as it furthers his agenda he's perfectly content with that kind of world.

Generation Why?
07-23-2012, 12:53 PM
Oh? (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/06/06/christian-studio-cant-refuse-to-photograph-lesbian-couple-cour/)

And I disagree with that. I support everyone's rights. That includes gays and Christians. They should not be forced to pander to each other in the private sector.

Novaheart
07-23-2012, 01:08 PM
So, the popularity of an idea trumps its Constitutionality?

I already said that I think that I should have the right to freedom of association even in business. The exerpts you responded to were written in the context of existing US law regarding public accommodations. And no, I don't expect that to change in our lifetimes. Was it illegal to discriminate against Jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler?

Odysseus
07-23-2012, 01:39 PM
I already said that I think that I should have the right to freedom of association even in business. The exerpts you responded to were written in the context of existing US law regarding public accommodations. And no, I don't expect that to change in our lifetimes. Was it illegal to discriminate against Jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler?

Hard to say. The Weimar Republic was very PC for its day, so it's unlikely that Jews were subjected to legal discrimination, while Gypsies were probably subjected to vagrancy laws and other legal restrictions that spoke to their lifestyles, rather than their ethnicity. Blacks were such a minute percentage of the German population at that time that it's unlikely that any laws mentioned them. The Germans did not give their colonial subjects citizenship, much less permit them to travel to Germany.

So, we go from a fairly liberal German political order to the Nazis in the space of a few years. All it took was economic chaos and a ready scapegoat that could be linked to the crisis in the minds of enough people to create support for the policies. Fortunately, our economy today is so strong and our national institutions are so trusted that this cannot happen here. :rolleyes:

Now, do you have anything to say about the rest of my arguments, or do you concede?

Gina
07-23-2012, 05:46 PM
The courts have no business finding exceptions to laws that aren't written into the laws. They should interpret, not create, law.

What I charge my kids for room and board is none of your business. :evil-grin:



The courts can say whatever they like, but what does the law say? And, as you pointed out before, the right to freedom of association does not exempt businesses. In a free society, financial transactions are voluntary. If the people running that B&B wish to deny themselves business based on their personal religious convictions, they are punishing themselves with the loss of revenue. Let's reverse the roles for a moment. Should a gay couple running a B&B be forced to rent a room to an evangelical couple who will spend their time loudly prosletyzing to the owners and their other guests? For that matter, should an African American family be obligated to rent to KKK members (and if so, does the burning cross on the lawn constitute free speech)? I wouldn't impose a family of Nazis on a Jewish B&B, and I wouldn't want to rent from a Nazi, either. Why do you demand that everybody not only accommodate you, but embrace and exalt you? Don't you see the pathology behind that need for approval?

:applause:

Gina
07-23-2012, 05:49 PM
We need to keep it apples to apples. Simply being gay does not compare to being obnoxious. Being Jewish doesn't mean that you will walk around engaging in a stereotype. Being black doesn't mean that you will be tapo dancing and rapping. An evangelical couple being respectful of the space of the other guests and the owner is not the same as one who is walking about asking everyone if he has heard the word or if he's aware that he's going to Hell.

As for the invocation of "couple" and "family", it's irrelevant. If you are operating a business then it's a business. The von Trapp family runs a ski lodge, they don't have the right to refuse to rent to people named Hitler or people named Goldberg. We can agree on the principle of freedom of association but the recurring theme in these objections is that it;s OK to discriminate against gay people but not Jews or Blacks. Since we aren't going to live to see a restoration of the right to discriminate against Blacks and Jews, then singling out Gay people is not acceptable either.

Oh but gay people compare their plight to blacks all the time. Most gay people (not all) can hide their preference from family, work etc. A black person can't hide being black. It's not a fair comparison at all.