Shop Refused to serve British servicemen

[Oswyntail]

So it's ok to discriminate against somebody for any other reason? And surely the hotel were not obligated to give a reason anyway?

There are many reasons for discriminating against people - sex, religion, race amongst others - that are forbidden by law; there are many others - having a beard, being left-handed - that are not. As you (I presume) well know.
In the story which this thread is about, there is no evidence of any illegal discrimination, just an incorrect understanding of the law. Anyone who continues to state or imply that there was such discrimination, without evidence, is dangerously close to stirring up racist feelings. IMHO.

 

[muz379]

So it's ok to discriminate against somebody for any other reason? And surely the hotel were not obligated to give a reason anyway?

The hotel was not obliged to give resons . I have stayed in hotel's before that have policies about groups of single sex people sharing rooms for what the hotels have said is to prevent groups of stags or hens ruining their rooms .

However in the case of that Hotel the couple who owned it said on their website that they only let their rooms to heterosexual married couples . The courts decided that because they run a hotel they fell fowl of the equality act in saying this .

This shop as far as I am aware had no policy of not serving someone just because they where a soldier .Even if they did I dont know if that would actually fall fowl of the equality act however it is conduct that should be condemned

Basically the equality act can make someones perfectly legal actions into unlawful conduct just by basis of discriminating against any of the protected characteristics . Like I said earlier a shop can for any reason withdraw someones implied license to enter it . It is legally entitled to do this . However if it had a sign up notifying all disabled people that they had no implied license to enter then it would be breaking the equality act .

 

[Antman]

There are many reasons for discriminating against people - sex, religion, race amongst others - that are forbidden by law; there are many others - having a beard, being left-handed - that are not. As you (I presume) well know.
In the story which this thread is about, there is no evidence of any illegal discrimination, just an incorrect understanding of the law. Anyone who continues to state or imply that there was such discrimination, without evidence, is dangerously close to stirring up racist feelings. IMHO.

Well if I had a car for sale and you came round to view but I decided that I didn't want to sell it to you, would that be discrimination?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The hotel was not obliged to give resons . I have stayed in hotel's before that have policies about groups of single sex people sharing rooms for what the hotels have said is to prevent groups of stags or hens ruining their rooms .

However in the case of that Hotel the couple who owned it said on their website that they only let their rooms to heterosexual married couples . The courts decided that because they run a hotel they fell fowl of the equality act in saying this .

This shop as far as I am aware had no policy of not serving someone just because they where a soldier .Even if they did I dont know if that would actually fall fowl of the equality act however it is conduct that should be condemned

Basically the equality act can make someones perfectly legal actions into unlawful conduct just by basis of discriminating against any of the protected characteristics . Like I said earlier a shop can for any reason withdraw someones implied license to enter it . It is legally entitled to do this . However if it had a sign up notifying all disabled people that they had no implied license to enter then it would be breaking the equality act .

Whilst having a sign up saying that disabled peoples were not allowed in would not be very nice, and I would boycott any such place in disgust, surely it is their shop and they can refuse entry to whoever they want?

 

[455driver]

The hotel was not obliged to give reasons . I have stayed in hotel's before that have policies about groups of single sex people sharing rooms for what the hotels have said is to prevent groups of stags or hens ruining their rooms .

However in the case of that Hotel the couple who owned it said on their website that they only let their rooms to heterosexual married couples . The courts decided that because they run a hotel they fell fowl of the equality act in saying this .

The gay couple specifically targetted that Hotel because it was run by a Christian couple with their Christian views!

 

[Oswyntail]

Well if I had a car for sale and you came round to view but I decided that I didn't want to sell it to you, would that be discrimination?.

Illegal discrimination? Only if you refused on any of the grounds that have been declared illegal (race, sex, religion etc etc.) Legal discrimination? Possibly, if you refused because I had a beard, or an accent you didn't like. [I once had a colleague who was rung up by the vendors on the morning he was due to move house, saying they were pulling out because they didn't think their house would be happy to have him and his family living there. Offered to pay compensation]
Have you got it yet? Or are we going to have to go through any number of increasingly bizarre hypotheticals until you do?

 

[Clip]

Well if I had a car for sale and you came round to view but I decided that I didn't want to sell it to you, would that be discrimination?

No. You wouldnt even have to give a reason.

Whilst having a sign up saying that disabled peoples were not allowed in would not be very nice, and I would boycott any such place in disgust, surely it is their shop and they can refuse entry to whoever they want?

They can refuse anyone but they cannot refuse on grounds of peoples disability - that is discrimination.

The gay couple specifically targetted that Hotel because it was run by a Christian couple with their Christian views!

I dont know if thats true but it does highlight peoples prejudice against others.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this? The Equality Act 2010 makes it quite clear that:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• age
• being or becoming a transsexual person
• being married or in a civil partnership
• being pregnant or having a child
• disability
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

And that

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

• at work
• in education
• as a consumer
• when using public services
• when buying or renting property
• as a member or guest of a private club or association

Surely this isn't hard to understand?

 

[Antman]

Illegal discrimination? Only if you refused on any of the grounds that have been declared illegal (race, sex, religion etc etc.) Legal discrimination? Possibly, if you refused because I had a beard, or an accent you didn't like. [I once had a colleague who was rung up by the vendors on the morning he was due to move house, saying they were pulling out because they didn't think their house would be happy to have him and his family living there. Offered to pay compensation]
Have you got it yet? Or are we going to have to go through any number of increasingly bizarre hypotheticals until you do?

It's all a bit irrelevant because I wouldn't have to give a reason
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The gay couple specifically targetted that Hotel because it was run by a Christian couple with their Christian views!

Yes I suspected the whole thing was a put up job.

 

[muz379]

The gay couple specifically targetted that Hotel because it was run by a Christian couple with their Christian views!

You might well be right , I did often wonder what a gay couple wanted with a hotel run by devout Christians , but even so they where a sitting duck . With blatantly discriminatory things on the website it was just waiting for someone to come along and test the waters .

The law in this country means that you cannot run a Hotel(amongst other things) and discriminate against people using any of the protected characteristics from the equality act . The Hotel blatantly did do that and so the court decided they should pay the couple damages .

I dont necessarily agree with what happened- for instance I dont know how the measure of damages is appropriate and I also dont know how I feel about forcing christians to accomodate homosexuality in what could well have been their own home . However as a hetrosexual man I have not experienced life from the perspective as a homosexual who could have been persecuted or treated unfairly before just because of who I choose to fall in love with .However that is irrelevant because regardless of what anybody things it is the law as it stands . If the Hotel owners dont like it then they can move out of the hotel business (indeed im sure I read a story saying that they had changed to a not for profit organisation )

Whilst having a sign up saying that disabled peoples were not allowed in would not be very nice, and I would boycott any such place in disgust, surely it is their shop and they can refuse entry to whoever they want?

Nope the equality act applies to shops and restaurants and stuff like that . Basically as a rule of thumb if you run something that offers services to the general public then you have to comply with the equality act or have a good reason for not doing it .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's all a bit irrelevant because I wouldn't have to give a reason
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes I suspected the whole thing was a put up job.

But then if a pattern emerged you'd better have a good way to explain it .

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't have a clue who ran most hotels or b&b's so I'm not sure that anyone would go around deliberately trying to 'test' someone out.

 

[Clip]

I wouldn't have a clue who ran most hotels or b&b's so I'm not sure that anyone would go around deliberately trying to 'test' someone out.

Well you would if they made it clear that there were to be no jonmorris's allowed or somethign similar

 

[Chew Chew]

Right on, very sixth form.

Standard issue response from those on the fringes on the dim right wing.

 

[ExRes]

Standard issue response from those on the fringes on the dim right wing.

Considering your comment it would seem a perfectly reasonable response, do we take it that you represent the dim left wing ?

 

[Amberley54]

The gay couple specifically targetted that Hotel because it was run by a Christian couple with their Christian views!

Did they?

Where did you learn that? Surely not from the Daily Mail, please!?

 

[455driver]

Did they?

Where did you learn that? Surely not from the Daily Mail, please!?

No , from the local (Cornish) papers.

They have since turned the Hotel into a respite home for Christians after they were dropped from a number of tourism guide because of their views. I wish them well with the endeavour.

Oh for what its worth, I wouldnt have been welcome at their Hotel either because my (female) partner and I are not married but I would just stay somewhere else rather than throw my teddy out!

 

[Chew Chew]

Considering your comment it would seem a perfectly reasonable response, do we take it that you represent the dim left wing ?

That isn't for me to decide.

The "sixth form politics" attempt at a put down is nothing more than a lazy ignorant response, especially since it may be aimed at those in the UK where there is no sixth form.

Somehow, though, I don't expect those that throw the term around to know that "sixth form" doesn't exist everywhere though.