 |
| A Gays only inn- the Northstar located in Blackpool, England |
By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) FEB 22 | The British watchdog government organisation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is undertaking an investigation into whether or not "gay-only" hotels and bed & breakfast inns are violating the provisions of the UK's equality laws designed to prevent people being treated unfairly in the provision of goods or services.
In a landmark court ruling this past January, a Cornwall couple, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, proprietors of a "Christian" oriented boutique hotel were found guilty of discrimination under equality laws after they refused to let a Gay couple stay in a double room, in the legal action supported by the EHRC which brought the case against them to court.
The judge from the Bristol Crown's Court ruled that the couple were discriminating against civil partners Martin Hall and Stephen Preddy solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The case is now set for appeal with the Bulls being backed by the Christian Institute.
A spokesman for the EHRC said Monday that the commission must establish an "objective balance" by considering if gays-only accommodation also defies the legislation.
"As discriminatory issues concerning 'Christian' bed and breakfast establishments and hotels have been officially brought to our attention, and as we are testing the law in this area, there is a need for the Commission to establish an 'objective balance'.
We are, therefore, looking in to the matter of 'gay-only' hotels' and B&B establishments and the potentially discriminatory policies towards heterosexual couples that some of those 'gay-only' establishments may hold."
The spokesman also acknowledged that the commission has not received a single complaint from the public about such establishments. The EHRC disclosed that it has spent £15,320 of public funds to ensure compliance of the laws by hotels that identify as "Christian" warning the hotel owners to avoid discriminatory practises especially when dealing with their treatment of gays & lesbians.
Reactions from Hoteliers who run same-sex establishments expressed the fear they could be put out of business if they are forced to open their doors to heterosexual couples as it will make their core clientele feel more self-conscious. According to the PinknewsUK:
John Bellamy, 55, who runs a homosexual hotel in Bournemouth for men only, said that the new legislation could result in the closure of exclusively gay guesthouses. While he said he welcomed the new equality laws for tackling discrimination, he added that it had "come at a price"."I knew we'd get this as the new legislation is a double-edged sword," said Mr Bellamy, who runs Hamilton Hall, which advertises that "clothing is optional" at the hotel."We've been campaigning for this law for years so that everyone is equal, but it could spell the end of gay-only resorts. Gay bars and clubs are closing because they can't restrict themselves any more and the gay world is losing its culture."Mark Hurst, who runs a "gay-only" guesthouse in Blackpool has also expressed fears that he could lose his homosexual clientele if he is forced to accept heterosexual people."Many of them would feel more self-conscious. Many of our guests like to just sit on the settee in the lounge and cuddle up to watch a film," he said."They can hold hands and have a little kiss and would behave in a way they may not if they were in a mixed crowd."
Posts
4 comments:
I welcome this even handedness, though some may see it as wasteful of funds. Being homosexual is nothing special, it is simply sexual orientation.
I believe that there should not be gay only hotels. I believe one should advertise as "We cater mainly for homosexual men, though all guests are made equally welcome" (or Lesbians, or Trans folk).
I believe in full integration. In the same manner that "Blacks Only" and "Whites Only" is wrong, so is "Gay Men Only" or, indeed "Christians Only".
Last year My friend Bernd and I had the misfortune to stay in a Christian Bed and Breakfast. We were not mistreated, and we are not lovers, nor are we overtly gay, so a twin room was perfectly fine, but we felt the atmosphere to be hostile to not believers. God was everywhere. SOmehow we felt we might have to sleep with our hands outside the bedclothes!
But I digress. One cannot have an environment where one is partially non discriminatory. That is like being slightly pregnant. All or nothing is right, and I want all.
Okay so should we have Saunas with 'mixed' clientele? I am certain that gay men would be as delighted as straight men and women would be to see everyone screwing, sucking alongside each other.
The difference here is one of what is done in an establishment, as opposed to what the proprietor's belief imposes on the customers.
The gay sauna would be wrong to limit its services to gay Christians, just as much as it would be wrong to deny gay men the right to yell "Oh My God," at the appropriate moment.
The straight B&B however is wrong to limit the lawful activities of its clients which offend only the beliefs of Christians. The service must not be denied.
One limits the premises to an activity by persons of the same sex. The other seeks to impose conditions according to a personal belief which has and should have no bearing on the provision of the service.
I might like the idea of the integration of the various sexualities, but I don't think the reintroduction of the Roman Orgy is currently on the agenda of any political party, let alone being stimulating to the active sexual practices of individuals.
Personally, I am not at all happy about homogenizing society on the basis of sexual activities.
The purist in me makes me swing Tim's way, that it needs to be equal, but then I think about restroom facilities and whether or not those are discriminatory. The reality is that women and men don't function exactly the same way, so their requirements are different. Is recognizing that reality discrimination? Maybe, in some way, but that isn't really the issue here, is it?
Des goes into an example of a public sauna, but that's not really what it's about either.
We are talking about PRIVATE ROOMS in a public hotel or B&B. Limiting the registration to only gays is just as discriminatory as limiting registration to non-gays. For that matter, what about lesbians? Would they not be welcome in a 'gay only' B&B? Nobody (but Des) is thinking about the ramifications of public sexual acts in the context of these discussions. Maybe, just maybe, he has extrapolated a bit too far, or is sighting down a tangential arc.
If any particular establishment wants to invite a specific clientele, I don't see a problem, but if they want to exclude a specific clientele I do see a problem. Of course it behooves the clients registered there to be completely courteous and accepting (not frowning and commenting) of the other clients, and if they cannot behave decently and courteously they should be asked to either fix their attitude or leave. There is no excuse for going into an establishment identifying itself as catering to people with certain features or characteristics and then criticizing those people for who they are.
Trab makes excellent points, but my points are practical. (I can't believe I am trying to be practical).
We have Bed and Breakfasts here in Australia which cater exclusively for Gay men. They are exotic, erotic and safe houses for men who specifically do not want to have to encounter the opposite sex in any shape or form at their accommodation establishment.
They range from, the guest rooms of a public hotel whose bar areas are open to everyone, but the guest area is male only, to tropical paradise resorts which are very much an all area male only resort.
As such I do not think it is too much to ask that an establishment may offer service to one sex or the other. However the moment it becomes an establishment for both sexes, then it should not be able to prohibit couples of the same sex from being accommodated.
Religion of the proprietors should not be a factor in providing a public accommodation service of any kind.
If there was a law which insisted on homosexual hotels for gay people, then you have an unacceptable form of segregation and discrimination.
Post a Comment