"No marriage certificate, NO MARRIAGE BED!"...

AnonoBoy · 19-01-2011 2:53pm

mloc wrote: »

"Religious intolerence" is a term that gets used too often. Religious opinions, just like any other, are open to discussion and criticism just like any other.

Unfortunately, we still have a ridiculous blasphemy law here in Ireland... free speech in Ireland therefore being somewhat limited.

Oh Jesus titty-f*cking Christ do we still have that blasphemy law? Well I'll be b*ggered by Buddha and balls tickled by Mohammed, it looks like we do!

sensibleken · 19-01-2011 2:56pm

mconigol wrote: »

It might be...but honestly who cares?? What harm is it doing?? None.

I would say turning the other cheek to bigotry and descrimination is far more harmfull than standing up for your rights. If you want to be walked all over and not stand up for yurself when your legal rights are being abuse then fine. but dont begrudge others that would stand up for themselves

whitetigerkungf · 19-01-2011 3:02pm

Freedom of speech. If you can't take the criticism then don't open your mouth.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree on that one, but the other side is that the Christian couple also has freedom of speech to say it's wrong to be gay.

In my opinion all this case has done is show how un equal, equality law is. For instance the right of the couple to practice their religious beliefs, had been superseded by the gay couples right to be whatever sexual orientation they are.

This is what happens where political correctness is legislated for there is always going to be a flaw in the law. The culture of running and looking for monetary compensation does not help ether.

AnonoBoy · 19-01-2011 3:06pm

I'd agree on that one, but the other side is that the Christian couple also has freedom of speech to say it's wrong to be gay.

Nobody is denying them that right.

They just can't refuse to allow the gay couple to stay on the grounds that they're gay.

Penn · 19-01-2011 3:09pm

whitetigerkungf wrote: »

I'd agree on that one, but the other side is that the Christian couple also has freedom of speech to say it's wrong to be gay.

In my opinion all this case has done is show how un equal, equality law is. For instance the right of the couple to practice their religious beliefs, had been superseded by the gay couples right to be whatever sexual orientation they are.

This is what happens where political correctness is legislated for there is always going to be a flaw in the law. The culture of running and looking for monetary compensation does not help ether.

I disagree. No one is infringing on the owners right to practice their religious beliefs, nor for the gay couple to be gay. The rights in question are the owners rights to refuse admission (which they were not allowed to do for discrimination reasons), and the gay couples right to be free from discrimination. The owners can refuse admission if for example, they think the person might be dangerous or cause damage. They cannot refuse admission to someone for their sexuality.

twinQuins · 19-01-2011 3:13pm

whitetigerkungf wrote: »

I'd agree on that one, but the other side is that the Christian couple also has freedom of speech to say it's wrong to be gay.

I've highlighted the key word. People are free to say what they like but too often take criticism (no matter how warranted) as others trying to silence them.
You can say what you like, you cannot, however, do what you like. If, for, example I followed Trog and he commanded me to go out and murder everyone I came across would my religious freedoms be a valid defence?

In my opinion all this case has done is show how un equal, equality law is. For instance the right of the couple to practice their religious beliefs, had been superseded by the gay couples right to be whatever sexual orientation they are.

You mean their right not to be discriminated against.

This is what happens where political correctness is legislated for there is always going to be a flaw in the law.

No, this is what happens when you live in an equitable society where its members cannot be discriminated against. How, in any way, is this political correctness?
In what kind of twisted world is legislation designed to stop people from being discriminated against seen as political correctness?

whitetigerkungf · 19-01-2011 3:24pm

The thing is though it's not because they were gay that they were denied a room, it's because they were not married. It think that maybe a problem with the way this case was reported. Everyone focused on the sexuality issue. And the couple wanted their civil partnership to be seen as the same as marriage. The problem is of course that a civil partnership is not the same as a marriage. It's not given the same recognition. I think gay people should be allowed a full marriage before I get acused of being homophobic

19-01-2011 3:27pm

whitetigerkungf wrote: »

The thing is though it's not because they were gay that they were denied a room, it's because they were not married. It think that maybe a problem with the way this case was reported. Everyone focused on the sexuality issue. And the couple wanted their civil partnership to be seen as the same as marriage. The problem is of course that a civil partnership is not the same as a marriage. It's not given the same recognition. I think gay people should be allowed a full marriage before I get acused of being homophobic

In the legislation, it is illegal for a business to discriminate against someone on the basis that a civil partnership is not the same as a marriage.

Daith · 19-01-2011 3:28pm

whitetigerkungf wrote: »

The thing is though it's not because they were gay that they were denied a room, it's because they were not married.

The notice read: "We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only."

So yeah it's because they were gay.

mconigol · 19-01-2011 3:33pm

28064212 wrote: »

But you think letting men in free and charging women is wrong?

When did I say that??

28064212 wrote: »

Providing separate toilets and sports is totally different. If you had said only providing women's toilets you might have had a point.

How is it exactly?? They're not banning men from their niteclub. I'd have a legitimate expectation to pay into a nite-club therefore why should I expect to get in free? If that happens it's bonus time! Some people may find that unfair but tough cookies...

28064212 wrote: »

What if it's the only night-club in town? Hardly an unusual situation in Ireland. What if it's €20? Every night you go out? You're ok with paying that because of your gender?

No, I wouldn't be ok with paying that anywhere. I simply wouldn't go and the free market would decide on the fate of that business.

sensibleken wrote: »

I would say turning the other cheek to bigotry and descrimination is far more harmfull than standing up for your rights. If you want to be walked all over and not stand up for yurself when your legal rights are being abuse then fine. but dont begrudge others that would stand up for themselves

What we're talking about is not bigotry or discrimination. Favoritism maybe, but not discrimination. I'm not begrudging others anything, I'm saying it's not discriminatory, you usually have a legitimate expectation to pay into a niteclub, if somebody else gets in for free then more luck to them.

twinQuins · 19-01-2011 3:36pm

Daith wrote: »

The notice read: "We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only."

So yeah it's because they were gay.

Pretty much. As 28064212 pointed out, marriage is the same as civil partnership where the law is concerned. Considering this was a legal case then the law is all that mattered.

Now, considering they were married (essentially) that leaves only one other possibility: the fact that they were not heterosexual.
The fact is, they pointed out heterosexual married couples, this indicates they must have known that civil partnership was on an equal footing with marriage and were, in what looks to be a roundabout way, looking to keep out homosexuals.

I am not saying they were, I'm just presenting my analysis.

PeterIanStaker · 19-01-2011 3:36pm

"How come when there are Christians there's never a lion around?" - Billy Connolly

sensibleken · 19-01-2011 3:38pm

mconigol wrote: »

What we're talking about is not bigotry or discrimination. Favoritism maybe, but not discrimination. I'm not begrudging others anything, I'm saying it's not discriminatory, you usually have a legitimate expectation to pay into a niteclub, if somebody else gets in for free then more luck to them.

It is discrimination accoriding to the dictionary and the law. its just you who thinks otherwise. I look forward to visiting your country some day

19-01-2011 3:42pm

mconigol wrote: »

When did I say that??

... Right here:

mconigol wrote: »

It's considered socially acceptable (by most sane people) that ladies free-in night is fine. I doubt the same would be true for the opposite situation.

mconigol wrote: »

How is it exactly?? They're not banning men from their niteclub. I'd have a legitimate expectation to pay into a nite-club therefore why should I expect to get in free? If that happens it bonus time! Some people may find that unfair but tough cookies...

I have a legitimate expectation to pay the same as everybody else into a night-club, and not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation

mconigol wrote: »

No, I wouldn't be ok with paying that anywhere. I simply wouldn't go and the free market would decide on the fate of that business.

So explain why a night-club can't decide on a whites-only policy, on the basis that the "free-market" will take care of them?

mconigol wrote: »

What we're talking about is not bigotry or discrimination. Favoritism maybe, but not discrimination. I'm not begrudging others anything, I'm saying it's not discriminatory, you usually have a legitimate expectation to pay into a niteclub, if somebody else gets in for free then more luck to them.

"Favoritism maybe, but not discrimination" - Lol :pac: What do you think discrimination is exactly?

mconigol · 19-01-2011 3:53pm

sensibleken wrote: »

It is discrimination accoriding to the dictionary and the law. its just you who thinks otherwise. I look forward to visiting your country some day

There are many dictionary definitions of discrimination.

28064212 wrote: »

... Right here:

I still don't see where I said it was wrong.

28064212 wrote: »

I have a legitimate expectation to pay the same as everybody else into a night-club, and not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation

No you don't. There no legitimate expectation to pay the same price as everybody else for any product or service. A price is only an offer, it's called "invitation to treat".

28064212 wrote: »

So explain why a night-club can't decide on a whites-only policy, on the basis that the "free-market" will take care of them?

"Favoritism maybe, but not discrimination" - Lol :pac: What do you think discrimination is exactly?

Because that would be real discrimination. Shades of grey and all that...

19-01-2011 4:01pm

mconigol wrote: »

I still don't see where I said it was wrong.

So you're perfectly fine with a nightclub charging women and letting men in free?

mconigol wrote: »

No you don't. There no legitimate expectation to pay the same price as everybody else for any product or service. A price is only an offer, it's called "invitation to treat".

Seriously? You're going to try and use the law to back your argument up?

You cannot offer different prices to different groups based on the protected characteristics already mentioned on the thread. The law is perfectly clear on that point

mconigol wrote: »

Because that would be real discrimination. Shades of grey and all that...

Ah, "real" discrimination. As opposed to fake discrimination?

Explain the difference in these two situations:
Nightclub A charges men €10 and women are let in free. Nightclub B charges black people €10 and white people are let in free. Are A and B both fine or are they both breaking the law?

mconigol · 19-01-2011 4:17pm

28064212 wrote: »

So you're perfectly fine with a nightclub charging women and letting men in free?

Yes, no sweat off my back.

28064212 wrote: »

Seriously? You're going to try and use the law to back your argument up?

You cannot offer different prices to different groups based on the protected characteristics already mentioned on the thread. The law is perfectly clear on that point

Actually if you read my post I said you or I as individuals do not have a legitimate expectation to pay the same price as everybody else. As I said it's called "invitation to treat", a price is only considered an offer, it's not legally binding. The law is perfectly clear on that point also.

What's a protected group anyway? Aren't we all supposed to be equal? I object to being grouped...

28064212 wrote: »

Ah, "real" discrimination. As opposed to fake discrimination?

Explain the difference in these two situations:
Nightclub A charges men €10 and women are let in free. Nightclub B charges black people €10 and white people are let in free. Are A and B both fine or are they both breaking the law?

Look I'm not going to answer you're question because your intent is to try paint me as some kind of racist, sexist pig or something. I'm merely looking at the scenario objectively and unemotionally.

You could always look at it from another point of view and see it as a way to encourage people to come to your business who otherwise might not. It is not being used as a punishment to discourage certain groups rather think of it as an incentive scheme.

19-01-2011 4:27pm

mconigol wrote: »

Actually if you read my post I said you or I as individuals do not have a legitimate expectation to pay the same price as everybody else. As I said it's called "invitation to treat", a price is only considered an offer, it's not legally binding. The law is perfectly clear on that point also.

Not really sure why I have to state this again, but: you cannot offer different prices to different groups based on the protected characteristics already mentioned on the thread

mconigol wrote: »

What's a protected group anyway? Aren't we all supposed to be equal? I object to being grouped...

And how exactly is treating one group differently to another equal? I mentioned nothing about protected groups. Everyone has one value for each of the protected characteristics: male or female; gay or straight; black, asian or white. The law makes all those groups equal

mconigol wrote: »

Look I'm not going to answer you're question because your intent is to try paint me as some kind of racist, sexist pig or something. I'm merely looking at the scenario objectively and unemotionally.

So answer the question "objectively and unemotionally". If you're able

mconigol wrote: »

You could always look at it from another point of view and see it as a way to encourage people to come to your business who otherwise might not. It is not being used as a punishment to discourage certain groups rather think of it as an incentive scheme.

And we're back to the exact same place. Is offering white people a discount "encouraging" them to come to your business?

mconigol · 19-01-2011 4:31pm

28064212 wrote: »

Not really sure why I have to state this again, but: you cannot offer different prices to different groups based on the protected characteristics already mentioned on the thread

Not really sure why I have to state this again but: I never said that. I said you or me as individuals cannot have a basic expectation to pay the same price for any product or service. I was referring to the post in which you stated that you did have a basic expectation to this. You don't.

19-01-2011 4:33pm

mconigol wrote: »

Not really sure why I have to state this again but: I never said that. I said you or me as individuals cannot have a basic expectation to pay the same price for any product or service. I was referring to the post in which you stated that you did have a basic expectation to this. You don't.

You missed the necessary part of the sentence:
I have a legitimate expectation to pay the same as everybody else into a night-club, and not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation

jackiebaron · 19-01-2011 5:07pm

Should have returned to the B&B on the Sunday and if the couple were there working they should have happily stoned them to death for working on the Sabbath. That's Leviticus too!

Irish Guitarist · 19-01-2011 5:35pm

They own the place. They should be allowed have some say in what goes on there.

HellFireClub wrote: »

"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice."

Equal rights shouldn't be used as a cloak to sue people for £1,800.

Millicent · 19-01-2011 6:24pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

They own the place. They should be allowed have some say in what goes on there.
Equal rights shouldn't be used as a cloak to sue people for £1,800.

How are people still not getting this? It's a business.

A Business!!!

If Tesco refused to let you shop in their store because you were gay, would that be okay?

mconigol · 19-01-2011 6:36pm

28064212 wrote: »

You missed the necessary part of the sentence:
I have a legitimate expectation to pay the same as everybody else into a night-club, and not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation

No I didn't. It doesn't matter, you do not have a legitimate expectation to both.

You only have a legitimate expectation not to be discriminated against on the basis of my gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation only.

Either you're trying to backtrack on what you've said or else what you meant to say the first time around was that you have a legitimate expectation to not have to pay any different than anybody of a different gender, race skin colour or sexual orientation.

All I'm saying is that as an individual you don't have the right to have a legitimate expectation to be charged the same as other individuals.

As far as I'm concerned the normal thing is to pay into a nite club. It's the owners prerogative who they let in for free of not. You should expect to pay not expect a free ride regardless of who else gets one. You are not being denied entry, just having to pay like you normally would.

the_syco · 19-01-2011 6:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

If I can't lie with womenkind, who the f**k am I meant to shag? Your ma?

efb · 19-01-2011 7:01pm

the_syco wrote: »

If I can't lie with womenkind, who the f**k am I meant to shag? Your ma?

If we're going by the OT, your young daughter or slaves are fair game

Liam Byrne · 19-01-2011 7:42pm

matrim wrote: »

Does that mean that they have to do it standing up or does doggy style count as not lying?

Nope - it just means they have to tell the truth to their boyfriends :

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Basically no more phone calls from the pub to say "stuck late at work, love".

To be fair to the couple, they were consistent, and it wasn't an anti-gay thing; I can kinda see where the issue is when it comes to "under their own roof", and the fact that if - for example - it were someone staying under their parent's roof and paying rent - we'd probably have people commenting "their house, their rules - move out if you want some action", no ?

B&B's stretch that scenario a little, but the question is by how much ?

Liam Byrne · 19-01-2011 7:45pm

Millicent wrote: »

If Tesco refused to let you shop in their store because you were gay, would that be okay?

They're not refusing to let you shop in their store.....they're refusing entry because you're wearing pyjamas / a hoodie.

You're perfectly entitled to shop there if you wish - just not on your own unlimited terms.

I'd raise an eyebrow (or two) if a B&B owner said that I couldn't share with a girlfriend, but I wouldn't sue......I'd just take my business elsewhere.

19-01-2011 8:41pm

mconigol wrote: »

No I didn't. It doesn't matter, you do not have a legitimate expectation to both.

You only have a legitimate expectation not to be discriminated against on the basis of my gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation only.

Either you're trying to backtrack on what you've said or else what you meant to say the first time around was that you have a legitimate expectation to not have to pay any different than anybody of a different gender, race skin colour or sexual orientation.

:pac: Yes, I was trying to backtrack by posting the exact same sentence

mconigol wrote: »

All I'm saying is that as an individual you don't have the right to have a legitimate expectation to be charged the same as other individuals.

As an individual who is part of numerous groups, I do have the right to have a legitimate expectation to be charged the same as other individuals on the basis of those groups.

mconigol wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the normal thing is to pay into a nite club. It's the owners prerogative who they let in for free of not. You should expect to pay not expect a free ride regardless of who else gets one. You are not being denied entry, just having to pay like you normally would.

And once again, we're back to the exact same question you refuse to answer. Explain (if you can) how that statement is not applicable to a night-club owner who wants to let all whites in for free.

AskMyChocolate · 19-01-2011 10:02pm

Interesting thread. Can anyone explain why it is unacceptable to charge women less to enter a nightclub yet perfectly legal to charge them less for car insurance when both discounts are equally discriminatory against men and are made for equally valid economic reasons?

19-01-2011 10:10pm

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Interesting thread. Can anyone explain why it is unacceptable to charge women less to enter a nightclub yet perfectly legal to charge them less for car insurance when both discounts are equally discriminatory against men and are made for equally valid economic reasons?

This is the relevant subsection from the Equal Status Act:

[Does not apply in respect of]
....
(d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment—

(i) is effected by reference to—
(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or
(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,
and
(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors,

Coeurdepirate · 19-01-2011 11:24pm

yupyup7up wrote: »

But KKK members do discriminate against blacks. They hold public meetings in the states and around the world to get their message across. I am in no associated with them sick bastards or do I agree with them in any way, but they are still allowed to hold their meetings in public.

Regardless of how twisted someone is, you have to allow them to express themselves freely.

The law sets physical harm at the limit.. If I want to be anti-gay/racist/anti-religion/whatever then I have the basic right to be entitled to my opinion and to express it freely.

You can't tell people what they can and can't say or believe.

That's untrue, actually.

Millicent · 20-01-2011 1:46am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They're not refusing to let you shop in their store.....they're refusing entry because you're wearing pyjamas / a hoodie.

You're perfectly entitled to shop there if you wish - just not on your own unlimited terms.

I'd raise an eyebrow (or two) if a B&B owner said that I couldn't share with a girlfriend, but I wouldn't sue......I'd just take my business elsewhere.

They're not refusing you because you have sex with a pair of pyjamas/ a hoodie though. :pac:

And I don't see how it's unlimited terms to expect to be allowed to share a bed with your legally recognised civil partner in a business which centres on giving people a place to sleep. People are getting too hung up on it being someone's home, IMO. If you ran a kitchen from your house, you'd still have to follow certain legalities or else close down. No different here. The law's the law.

zero_the_hero · 20-01-2011 2:28am

This is not a difficult issue. A business does not have the right in the UK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This business did, so they were sued, and lost. And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the B&B owners. What's the big deal?

Father Damo · 20-01-2011 7:12am

Millicent wrote: »

How are people still not getting this? It's a business.

A Business!!!

If Tesco refused to let you shop in their store because you were gay, would that be okay?

My arse. A business should be allowed to serve who they please IMO.

e.g. if you were a taxi driver and a traveller pulled you over and asked to go to Dunsink halt, would you? Course you wouldnt. Personal preference.

AskMyChocolate · 20-01-2011 9:18am

28064212 wrote: »

This is the relevant subsection from the Equal Status Act:

But then surely, by that logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for a licensed premises to refuse to serve people from the Travelling Community or charge them more to rent out a function room as statistically this group has a history of causing more fights/damage than people from the settled community. Also, by the same logic, surely it should be illegal to pay women/non-smokers an equal pension to men/smokers as this is positive discrimination in favour of the former groups given their statistical likelihood of living longer than the latter, no?

jackiebaron · 20-01-2011 9:25am

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

They own the place. They should be allowed have some say in what goes on there.
Equal rights shouldn't be used as a cloak to sue people for £1,800.

That's partly true much the same way as bouncers in front of a pub reserve the right to refuse entry to whomever at their own discretion.

HOWEVER, the reason given for refusal can be contested....WAS contested.... and found to be unlawful.

jackiebaron · 20-01-2011 9:33am

Father Damo wrote: »

My arse. A business should be allowed to serve who they please IMO.

e.g. if you were a taxi driver and a traveller pulled you over and asked to go to Dunsink halt, would you? Course you wouldnt. Personal preference.

Once again you are missing the point. If the scenario that you are talking about occurred and taxi driver stated explicitly that he wasn't taking the Traveller because the Traveller was, well, a Traveller, then he would be in breach of the law also and, if sued, would lose.

You can say "IMO" all you want but your opinion does NOT equal the LAW.

mconigol · 20-01-2011 9:39am

28064212 wrote: »

As an individual who is part of numerous groups, I do have the right to have a legitimate expectation to be charged the same as other individuals on the basis of those groups.

What the hell does this even mean?? I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to be saying

28064212 wrote: »

And once again, we're back to the exact same question you refuse to answer. Explain (if you can) how that statement is not applicable to a night-club owner who wants to let all whites in for free.

As far as I'm concerned who nite club owners decide to let in for free is their own decisions, blacks, whites, women, children, whoever. It's their prerogative. Nobody is being discriminated against because the intent is not to discourage one particular group from attending. Nobody is being punished since people who are paying should be expecting to do the same anyway. I suppose you think children/student discounts etc...is ageism too...:rolleyes:

mconigol · 20-01-2011 9:47am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

But then surely, by that logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for a licensed premises to refuse to serve people from the Travelling Community or charge them more to rent out a function room as statistically this group has a history of causing more fights/damage than people from the settled community. Also, by the same logic, surely it should be illegal to pay women/non-smokers an equal pension to men/smokers as this is positive discrimination in favour of the former groups given their statistical likelihood of living longer than the latter, no?

The law is not entirely black and white (no pun intended), regardless of what 28064212 would have us believe. Different types of discrimination in special circumstances are considered acceptable as this section of the Equal Status Act states.

mikemac · 20-01-2011 9:56am

When I worked in hotels and had grads (nobody called them debs) we'd refuse to sell rooms to the students attending.

As inevitably a gang would end up in the room drinking and messing.
We'd just flat out refuse to sell a room.

And when the coordinator asks you in to meet them before booking a function room, it's to check you out and judge you too. If they don't like the cut of your jib the room will be "already booked"

I can see how this couple won their case. I don't know what the compensation of £1,800 was for, where they that much out of pocket? Seems excessive,

AnonoBoy · 20-01-2011 10:02am

feelingstressed wrote: »

When I worked in hotels and had grads (nobody called them debs) we'd refuse to sell rooms to the students attending.

As inevitably a gang would end up in the room drinking and messing.
We'd just flat out refuse to sell a room.

And when the coordinator asks you in to meet them before booking a function room, it's to check you out and judge you too. If they don't like the cut of your jib the room will be "already booked"

I can see how this couple won their case. I don't know what the compensation of £1,800 was for, where they that much out of pocket? Seems excessive,

They were refused on the grounds that they were gay. Completely different. Also if the owners had said they were "already full" then they'd have gotten away with it. But they didn't.

The compensation is what's called punitive damages. Nobody is saying they were out of pocket that much.

mikemac · 20-01-2011 10:03am

Well If I've learned one thing from this thread it's if your business wants to refuse someone, just go ahead but never tell them the reason why

Say as little as possible as giving a reason is only ammunition for a court case

"Overbooked" may be a total lie but you won't get sued over it. That's what the owners should have done

mconigol · 20-01-2011 10:05am

feelingstressed wrote: »

Well If I've learned one thing from this thread it's if your business wants to refuse someone, just go ahead but never tell them the reason why

Say as little as possible as giving a reason is only ammunition for a court case

"Overbooked" may be a total lie but you won't get sued over it. That's what the owners should have done

Yep, as long as you do that it's all perfectly legal :pac::pac:

Liam Byrne · 20-01-2011 10:10am

AnonoBoy wrote: »

They were refused on the grounds that they were gay.

They were not. A girl and hee boyfriend were also refused.

20-01-2011 10:25am

mconigol wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned who nite club owners decide to let in for free is their own decisions, blacks, whites, women, children, whoever. It's their prerogative. Nobody is being discriminated against because the intent is not to discourage one particular group from attending. Nobody is being punished since people who are paying should be expecting to do the same anyway. I suppose you think children/student discounts etc...is ageism too...:rolleyes:

ROFL :pac::pac::pac:

So it's not discouraging one group, it's just encouraging another group? Riiiiiiighttttt....

mconigol wrote: »

The law is not entirely black and white (no pun intended), regardless of what 28064212 would have us believe. Different types of discrimination in special circumstances are considered acceptable as this section of the Equal Status Act states.

The law is not black and white because the law covers certain special circumstances? Is that a joke or something? You realise that I was the one who actually posted the legislation from the Equal Status Act? How do you fit 4 contradictory positions into two sentences?

And in both the B&B case and the nightclub cases, the law is perfectly black and white, that's why the owners lost.

feelingstressed wrote: »

Well If I've learned one thing from this thread it's if your business wants to refuse someone, just go ahead but never tell them the reason why

Say as little as possible as giving a reason is only ammunition for a court case

"Overbooked" may be a total lie but you won't get sued over it. That's what the owners should have done

mconigol wrote: »

Yep, as long as you do that it's all perfectly legal :pac::pac:

No it's not, it's just harder to prove. If evidence of discrimination is provided (e.g. a pattern where all black people are turned away), the owners would be found guilty. That was a very common tactic in America right up to the 80s. Black people would be told the hotel was full, but a space would mysteriously open up for the white person that arrived 5 minutes later. Of course, that's ok in your eyes apparently

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They were not. A girl and hee boyfriend were also refused.

They were refused because the proprietors do not give civil partnership the same status as marriage. That is illegal

Daith · 20-01-2011 10:29am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They were not. A girl and hee boyfriend were also refused.

Posted again

The notice read: "We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only."

So yeah it's because they were gay. Even if they were married they would have been refused.

mconigol · 20-01-2011 10:32am

28064212 wrote: »

ROFL :pac::pac::pac:

So it's not discouraging one group, it's just encouraging another group? Riiiiiiighttttt....

Yes, finally you understand

28064212 wrote: »

The law is not black and white because the law covers certain special circumstances? Is that a joke or something? You realise that I was the one who actually posted the legislation from the Equal Status Act? How do you fit 4 contradictory positions into two sentences?

Of course I realize that. I thought it was quite ironic actually that you would actually quote a section of law that specifically allows for discrimination in special circumstances while at the same time insisting that all discrimination is wrong and illegal.

28064212 wrote: »

And in both the B&B case and the nightclub cases, the law is perfectly black and white, that's why the owners lost.

I'd actually quite like to read about this niteclub case you've been talking about? I couldn't find any references to it online.

20-01-2011 11:00am

mconigol wrote: »

Yes, finally you understand

I can't tell if you're actually being serious or not anymore. What's the difference between a "discouraging" €10 charge on black people versus an "encouraging" €10 discount for white people?

mconigol wrote: »

Of course I realize that. I though it was quite ironic actually that you would actually quote a section of law that specifically allows for discrimination in special circumstances while at the same time insisting that all discrimination is wrong and illegal.

Where have I ever said that all discrimination was illegal? I have said that discrimination under any of the 9 protected characteristics is illegal, which is true. There are also exceptions provided in the law, which I have pointed out when they've been relevant. They are not relevant to the original case, and they are not relevant to the nightclub situations described

mconigol wrote: »

I'd actually quite like to read about this niteclub case you've been talking about? I couldn't find any references to it online.

The "Club M" case that someone else brought up and that I haven't referred to? No idea what happened to it. But if you're looking for a ruling that just reinforces exactly what I've been saying, here you go: http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/uploadedfiles/Press/DECS2004001.pdf

Was it right that the American hotel owner's from the 40s and 50s could turn away black people?

jackiebaron · 20-01-2011 11:04am

feelingstressed wrote: »

Well If I've learned one thing from this thread it's if your business wants to refuse someone, just go ahead but never tell them the reason why

Say as little as possible as giving a reason is only ammunition for a court case

"Overbooked" may be a total lie but you won't get sued over it. That's what the owners should have done

Well you see, you can't tell if two guys are gay just by looking at them. Well...you can tell sometimes..but not always. Anyway if two guys come in and ask if you have rooms available and you do .... you're going to say yes if you do have rooms available. For all you know they could just be two walkers/hunters/anglers/golfers/whatever. Then when they say they just want one room....you will probably think "ok, they just want to save the cost of a second room. I'll given them a twin room". Then they reveal that they want a double bed for the pair of them...well then it's a bit too late to tell them you're overbooked if you're a bigoted bastard.

"No marriage certificate, NO MARRIAGE BED!"...

Comments