I think it is disgusting that gay hotel owners want to discriminate against straight people. There is absolutely no excuse for it, and I think this is only the tip of the iceburg.. It is genuinely repulsive that some bars in London advertise themselves as “men only” or having a “majority gay door policy.” We can’t have it both ways, boys. If we want to be accepted then we have to accept others just as willingly. Personally, as a gay man, I would never frequent a “gay only” or “men only” bar just for the reprehensible message that such labels send. I have many straight friends and the thought that I might not be able to take them with me to a place that I might otherwise want to frequent really gets under my skin.
I have a perfect solution to some gay hotels discriminating against str8 people
Make them “all clothing optional”
Watch the so called str8s oggling over the beautiful boys and their enormonus menbers. And the str8s – lots of them , probably cumming.
I actually agree with this, its wrong to discriminate against anyone regardless of background and sexuality etc. When providing a servive you must extend that to anyone who wishes to use it.
The gay community rightly disagrees with a hotel that discriminates against gay people, so the gay community must now be aware that discriminating against straight people makes them just as bad.
Heterophobia does exist in the LGBT community as I have witnessed it, and like with homophobia I think it will remain an issue for a long time, however it shouldn’t as I said, impose on someone else’s right to go to a hotel where they please, be they gay OR straight.
I agree Diego, I am frequently frustrated by the businesses that cater for the gay community that seem to want to encourage our separation from society.
The only exemptions in the law are for specialist organisations with a remit for a particular minority group, such as LGBT youth groups (although the one I worked with never made it a requirement to identify as LGBT, many young people came along with supportive straight friends).
The fact remains that we are, and always will be a minority, and if we want the heterosexuals to be sympathetic to our cause we can’t be discriminating against them.
I think that’s fair enough. I’m against discrimination of any sort, so why should this be an exeption?
There is no need for gay/LGBT “only” spaces, but I hope these hotels don’t water down their gay/LGBT “friendly” environment. Staight people should of course not be barred from any gay-run establishment, but I cannot see anything wrong with hoteliers and vendors maintaining a strong gay friendly atmosphere that anyone who wants to go there should be comfortable with and enjoy…. for instance, no same-sex couple should ever feel they would have to now tone down their public displays of affection for their partner, for example, just because there is also straight clientelle. Whoever goes there would need to know that anyone and everyone would be free to be themselves.
We can’t have it both ways. There is no reason why a hotel should be gay only, any more than a hotel should be heterosexual only. If – as I’m sure most gay people feel – it is wrong to be refused service on the basis of homosexual orientation then the same is true of heterosexual orientation. The argument that gay people don’t want “special” rights, we just want “equal” rights starts to look a bit shaky when we ask for special rights.
I agree. I know that in the past, when gay people faced much more homophobia, then gay-only spaces were very much needed. Gay people needed a place that they could go and be themselves without the fear of problems from straights etc…
Now though, as we wish to have no discrimination at all, that equally applies to us also. I run a business aimed at manly gay men. However, I do not question my customers as to their sexuality.. A customer is a customer and all are welcome… Men women, straight, gay, lesbian or transgendered, all must be given the same level of service and support.
I really cannot understand why businesses feel the need or justification for discrimination these days, be they ´christian´ or gay!
Anti-discrimination laws works both ways but apparently there has not been a single complaint against any gay hotels for discriminmating against would be heterosexual guests,
Though I imagine there will be some Christianist heterosexuals looking to score a point and hoping to bring a court case now…since the Bulls B&B case.
“The EHRC says it has not received any complaints over gay-only hotels but is looking for evidence of potential discrimination.”
Were they looking for anti gay hotels before then? No they defended the anti gay Christians though.
So how “equal” is this organisation as all their action seems to be pro christian and anti gay.
Most businesses that in the past have advertised themselves as gay have done so to advise bigots in advance what they may be getting in to. I can’t say I have ever seen a sign saying “No heterosexuals”
I have to agree, I was almost not allowed to enter a London gay bar myself because I “didn’t look gay” by the bouncer what did he want me to do to prove it?
How about just having a gay friendly place. One can use the facilities if one is gay or gay friendly.
This allows the idiots to be restricted, as they deserve and has no impact on the open minded.
I am all for discrimination against any type of “phobes.
Hold on, gay hotel owners don’t ask for Christians to identify themselves before banning them! How would you know they are Christians? Do Christians walk in a strange way that identifies them as Christians?
I hear some catholics kids walk in a strange way
Large signs clearly indicating an ‘in here there be queers’ atmosphere, a guest registry, polite reminders from burly staff members, and good quality security cameras should allow LGBT venue owners to run inclusive 18+ establishments. Wary str8 folks should have the chance to experience the frequently fun vibe found in queer clubs. In all the years I drank in gay bars I can’t recall there being even one physical fight–just the occasional spat employing wits, not fists.
I think most gay people prefer gay-friendly mixed spaces. I have been made very angry trying to get into a gay club with a group of friends to be told by the bouncer that I could come in but the women with me couldn’t (including one who was a femme lesbian). Gay-only spaces should be a thing of the past. I am fine with the idea of majority gay policies and I think door staff should have discretion to turn away drunken (straight) hen parties from gay clubs or letchy straight men from clubs aimed at lesbians etc. There are some gay clubs which have always been mixed and attracted straight people as well and the kind of straight people who go to these clubs are gay-friendly and want somewhere to go out with their gay mates. In fact sometimes closeted young people gearing up to coming out really need to be able to do this.
First off I agree gay only isn’t a nice thing to be part of.
HOWEVER I am very worried about the contents of this article. The reason the bulls went to court was they allowed people to come then discriminated against them, there were several complaints and proceedings insued.
Here we have a business openly saying which clients they serve. people no this beforehand so just go somewhere else, we may not agree with it but that’s life many prob like gay only as they are uneasy around straight people or fear abuse but the fact is NOBODY has complained.
So it is segregation but the discrimination is different as nobodies hurt as you know beforehand, yet tho I disagree with this practice it’s happened in all areas of society for decades upon decades. The problem here is the govt is actively seeking to prosecute with no complaints they are looking for evidence … What evidence?
I hate discrimination and the segregation of lgbt community but the govt looking to prosecute to seemingly back christians up with no given evidence feels like harassment maybe intrapment. Like the dark times of Tory rule again.
Absolutely there are complaints but they are conveniently not being acknowledged. Many more will follow now.
It was and is clear on the hotel booking form the policy of the Bull’s hotel. The gays simply chose to ride rooughshod over it.
Until this outrageous sting of the Bulls by militant gays many were content to say “live and let live”, Now I am sure there will be a backlash against “gay only” and you have stonewall to thank for that.
As for the “evidence” – hotels that say “gay only” even “gay frinedly” illustrate clear intention to discrimanate on sexual orientation and so break the law.”, Bouncersenforicng “gay only ” plicy are all the evidence needed.
The owners of gay only hotels were against this law when it came out and rightly so. I would prefer a world that allows gays and christians to have their own spaces,and if shutting 1000 gay establishments is needed to get the world back to its senses, so be it.
Sauce for the goose, etc.
Equality means Equality, not one rule for some and another for others.
I’m not sure how may venues do discriminate in this way, but it has to stop.
Totally understand. We can’t have it both ways.
ideally, all pubs, clubs, hotels, shops, leisure centres, cinemas, theatres, parks and streets should be gay friendly. a gay or lesbian couple should be able to walk hand in hand down the main street without ridicule or worse. they should be a ble to kiss and cuddle in a comfy corner of a bar just like heteros. then there would be no need for segregation.
obviously there will always be pubs and clubs etc that lean towards LGBT. In my locality there are several places that have drag acts and are considered ‘gay bars’ but as far as I know, being a teetotaller who doesn’t go to bars of any sort all that often, they let anyone in who behaves themsevles. Then, on a bigger scale, over in Blackpool there is ‘Funny Girls’ which is a full on ‘drag revue’ that is famous enough to get tourists of all persuasions in to enjoy the show.
Phew, and here was me thinking that I was the only one with this point of view.
I even wrote a blog on it about it at the beginning of the month – http://mikedalgarno.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/equality-it-works-both-ways/
it would be a matter of time! as per other comments, I see no reason for gay only hotels, bars etc etc
I am agains’t any discrimination!
“The body said it needed to establish an “objective balance” after investigating Christian-run hotels which bar gay couples.”
There you have it, that’s the reason.
“John Bellamy, who runs the gay-only Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth, said that equality legislation was a “double-edged sword” and claimed that forcing gay bars and hotels to accept straight people was killing gay culture.”
No it’s not. Gay ‘culture’ is being killed by hundreds of hen parties and the straight guys who come to ‘check out the freaks’ in Manchester and in the Two Sewers in London. It’s being destroyed by the gay magazines telling us we all need to be part of a ‘type’ and not express any degree of individuality.
It’s NOT being destroyed by a straight couple staying in a gay hotel (who probably wouldn’t bother to stay there anyhow)
Christian-only establishments have come about for the purpose of furthering existing oppression. Gay-only or gay-friendly establishments came about to provide gay people with places to be free of that oppression which already existed. It is NOT a symmetrical situation. As the article points out, there have been no complaints, this is politically motivated. It’s not motivated by specific acts of discrimination. Institutional discrimination against LGBT’s created and supported by Christians is still the law of the land in this country. The converse is not true. I’m not a separatist. I live in one of those leafy suburban boroughs where LGBT people blend in. However, I don’t think this is the simplistic issue most posters are painting it to be.
I personally agree that if a hotelier does not approve of heterosexual activity, they should have the right to not permit it in their hotel. It follows that a hotelier that disapproves of homosexual activity should have the right to not permit it in their hotel.
We must stress that the Christian couple did not hate gay people. They merely disapproved of the sexual activity in which the same-sex couple presumably engage in.
Let’s consider for a minute a blind man wishing to stay at a hotel with his guide-dog. Let’s also assume no pet hygiene laws apply, as laws are not fixed in the long run. However, the hotelier dislikes dogs and does not wish to permit one in his hotel.
Is this dog-intolerant hotelier ‘bigoted,’ ‘hateful’ and ‘discriminatory’ towards disabled people? Should he be forced to close his hotel, as surely if you can’t provide your services to all sections of the community, you shouldn’t be running a public business?
What about two naturists who wish to stay at a hotel run by a conservative couple who like guests to remain clothed at all times? Assuming again decencly laws do not apply as laws are not fixed. The hoteliers do not ‘hate’ the people, they merely disapprove of their activities. Should they be forced to close their business?
I’m sorry but I do see the need for Queer only spaces much as there is a need for Women Only spaces. The reason? Institutionalised, violent hate.
Queer people living in nice little areas may not need a dedicated space but allot of us do.
Sandals holiday anyone?
I agree if we had kept our mouths shut we could have had our gay only places clubs and bars should be included too
Ollie94, we’re talking about laws, their origins and applications. What’s the point of putting forward arguments based upon the notion that the laws don’t exist?
@Ollie94 — you’re saying that the act of taking one’s clothes off has the same weight as the act of being intimate with the person you love. That’s a ridiculous statement to make.
You’ve also argued that equal marriage will lead to polygamy — an equally absurd statement — so presumably, applying your reasoning, you must think allowing women to vote will lead to allowing ducks the vote in the future.
Aside for the absurdity of what you’re saying, is there any country in the world, that having legalized equal marriage has equalized polygamy ?
You ask if a hotelier is bigoted if he/she doesn’t allow guide dogs in his/her hotel. Yes. No ifs and buts, yes ! Clearly bigoted, hateful discrimination against disabled people.
It is pathetic that you consider that an argument. The conclusion is ineluctable. You, and the groups that you represent, feel there is nothing wrong with blatant hateful discrimination against any other group.
Not a single complaint – let’s repeat that for the benefit of those loony fundies a while ago whom we invited to complain if they’d been discriminated against by gay hotels.
No gay hotels shouldn’t discriminate against straight people, but it should be made clear what the hotel’s atmosphere is like to avoid any misunderstandings or complaints by straight people.
“Though I imagine there will be some Christianist heterosexuals looking to score a point and hoping to bring a court case now…since the Bulls B&B case.”
. . . . . . . . . .
I tend to agree with you Pavlos on this one.
I also think that we need gay only spaces. I understood that the reason why we have always created these spaces, has been is to feel comfort in an atmosphere; where we can be our selves free from homophobic abuse.
If heterosexuals want to enter gay spaces, I do not see a problem. What I do have a problem with is heterosexuals desending on mass to a gay space, not to enjoy our hospitality; but to make fun of it and behaviour homophobially on mass.
The fact that we have not seen one complaint to date, I think strongly confirms Pavlos idea that this is spitefull revenage; probably from Fundamentalist Christian quarter.
“Not a single complaint”
Well said, Iris, and indeed its the way it should be… and unlike our christian friends, we’re not calling for an exception to be made for us.
“I personally agree that if a hotelier does not approve of heterosexual activity,”
Of course you do, Ollie, we’ve already established you a bigot by your earlier postings. But do keep in mind we rarely listen to the inane ramblings of a 18-year old pseudo-religious freak with latent homosexual desires. We see to many of them, and you’re comments are hardly entertaining enough to be up there with the other religious fools.
“We must stress that the Christian couple did not hate gay people. They merely disapproved of the sexual activity in which the same-sex couple presumably engage in.”
@Ollie94 . . . .
Religious people have the right to beleive that homosexuality is wrong, but they do not have the right to interfere with gay people’s lives,
@Will — 18 you reckon ? I kind of assumed that Ollie94 was 16 years old, based on his id tag.
Either way, posting conservative ( small ‘c’ ) comments, supporting right wing newspaper columnists and MPs, and disparaging equal rights, is not the behaviour of a typical teenager.
Speaking as an out-and-proud gay man, I would much rather stay somewhere billed as ‘gay friendly’ rather than somewhere that was ‘gay only’.
It should be about helping people feel included in a wider, accepting society rather than trying to put up barriers and create segregation.
It is just as wrong for an establishment to bill itself as ‘gay only’ as it is for one to be ‘straight only’. It’s discrimination and is something our community has faught against for years. We can’t now say it’s wrong for straight people to disciminate against us, but right for us to discriminate against them as that is an indefensible position and will just cause great damage to our cause.
@Ollie94 — “We must stress that the Christian couple did not hate gay people. They merely disapproved of the sexual activity in which the same-sex couple presumably engage in.”
We ? Who’s “we” ? There’s no evidence to suggest either way whether they hate or don’t hate gay people. However, imposing an impossible requirement — they have to be married — and being devout, which I take to mean supporting statements like:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
shifts the balance probabilities towards their hating gay people.
“@Will — 18 you reckon ? I kind of assumed that Ollie94 was 16 years old, based on his id tag.”
By his own admission on another site, he is. He could have been lying there, and that would be hardly a stretch of the imagination given his insular and repugnant world whew, tiny as it is. By his tag, you are probably right. But 16 or 18, there is a lot of damaged neurons in that head of his.
“is not the behaviour of a typical teenager.”
Indeed, Harry. More issues than Hello! Magazine, I think. And the fact he chose to rant on a gay site, as his age, is quite revealing. Another budding Ted Haggard closet case without the guts to stand up and be himself, no doubt. Hardly a unique case.
More issues than Hello! Magazine, I think.
* Like *
You could equally assume that Ollie was 94 and therefore a typical Telegraph reader.
I’m all for welcoming straight people in gay hotels. Assuming that they know its gay owned, wouldn’t that suggest that they are comfortable and not homophobic so why would gay owners object? Its a good way to let straights get to know us, that we’re just like everybody else and not to be feared.
“You could equally assume that Ollie was 94 and therefore a typical Telegraph reader.”
At 94, he’s be more of a Telegram reader :)
Harlem and Brixton style policing. Typical Tory aproach. Their policies stimulate segregated ghettos, then go inside them to investigate their own policy in practice and to blame the minority involved. Are they going to bring dogs as well?
What they should be doing is asking who and what have created this atmosphere of segregation, and working to break barriers. And definitely not setting the dogs on those affected by section 28 type policies.
@ollie94 – sexuality isn’t an activity! It’s predictable that so many put forwards your nonsense about hating the sexuality and loving the persona s that’s complete crap from homophobic cherry-picking hypocritical christians and others
“Gay only” usually means “Gay males only”. There’s a “gay only” sauna near Leeds that a gay male friend sometimes goes to to relax. He asked if I (a gay female) could get in and was told that I wouldn’t even be allowed in the door. That’s not only discriminating against straight people, but against gay women as well, which is sexist really.
I’m all for “LGBT friendly” places, but when its “gay males only” or “women only” or “straight people only” it’s flat out discrimination, in my opinion.
What Policing, the police are not involved, EHRC (a body some tories would like to see the back of) are looking for some balance (some might say equality) in the following of some policies brought in under Labour (the Tories/Lib Dem coalition have not enacted any new policies in this area).
What on earth on you on about dogs for?
Has someone upped your meds ?
I do not like discrimination of any kind either but I do like the idea of having gay places. Because I like going to establishments where I don’t have to wonder if that man is gay or str8. Str8 people don’t usually have to wonder if that man/women they pass on the street and are interested in, if they are gay/str8, they assume they are str8. We don’t have that same luxury and I personally don’t like wasting my time weeding threw the str8 men. I like knowing when I go to a gay bar that the men there are gay and are a potential mate.
So when will the investigation into Christian/Muslim bookshops?
What about kosher and hal-all butchers?
Its only fair to investigate these too EHRC
These shops simply offer a specific product – religious literature or specially prepared food. Anyone is welcome to come in and browse or buy. If the shops had bouncers at the door barring people from coming in and buying stuff because they didn’t look Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Jedi enough then we have discrimination. Not before.
The regulations allow some exceptions to and as most Sauna’a are private clubs the relevant get out clause is
“clubs or associations which exist to provide a genuine beneﬁt to
or opportunity to a group linked to sexual orientation”
You could probably shoehorn a sauna into that.
I understand (but disagree with) the view that, particularly in gay bars and clubs, that allowing too many straight people in can be bad for business as these are often places where people want to meet a same-sex partner where the likelihood of them being gay/bi is higher than random meetings in college/workplace/etc. Though I strongly feel that there should absolutely not be a discriminating door policy, as lots of you have said – discrimination is not acceptable no matter who it is aimed at and who is dishing it out. It’s unfair, short-sighted and damaging for a community who works hard to counter discrimination to do the same themselves. Imagine non-gay clubs had a straight-only door policy to avoid “diluting the straightness” for the same reason (not sure if this exists today but that isn’t the point).
I think the same should apply to hotels. I can see the argument that characteristic A might offend people of characteristic B who make up the hotel’s main client base (insert gay/straight/black/white/whatever religion however you like) which may be bad for business. But there is a difference between characteristics such as race, religion and sexuality which are part of who a person is and characteristics such as being too noisy, smoking in rooms, aggressiveness etc which may also offend another guest. If a characteristic is invasively affecting a guest’s experience (such as noisy behaviour) then this is a just reason for the offending person not to stay there. But if it is a guest’s own sensitivities or prejudice, rather than another guest impinging on their stay, then this is not an acceptable reason to ask the “offending” guest to leave.
An additional comment to my previous one – it should also be the case that if someone of the characteristic in question *is* invasively detrimental to another guest’s stay (e.g. gay person intentionally trying to make another guest feel uncomfortable, religious person being aggressive towards someone of a different/no religion etc.) then this is a case where they should not be allowed to stay, but because if their specific bad behaviour and not because they are gay/straight/whatever.
Dave G. Any chance of the EHRC investigating the Tory Party and other bastions of conservatism? What about the inumerous complaints and accusations against them? Let’s have a thorough investigation into their historical practices related to sexual orientation. Why do you think the Tory Party is chockablock with homophobes setting policies for society? That is the place where section 28 was cooked up. That’s the place where policies for decades have segregated gay people.
when will the churches be held accountable as many are guilty of discrimination?
twitless: So how “equal” is this organisation as all their action seems to be pro christian and anti gay.
My experience of the EHRC is that some employees there are homophobic, and that those in charge prefer to turn a blind eye to the problem. However the EHRC does do good work to protect racial minorities.
I was under the impression that gay hotels, gay bars, gay nightclubs, etc. were simply public places with a mostly gay clientele. I didn’t know that some of these places actually enforced a gay-only policy! How utterly hypocritical! If the straights want to dance with us or honeymoon in our hotels, by all means let them! The battle for equality has never been won by reversing the discrimination. The more, the merrier, I say!
I am sick and fed up hearing people like those posting here telling everybody, that nobody minds gays anymore, and everything is just fine.
The policies for gay clientel (or gay friendly) only in bars, exist to create a ‘safe place’ where gay people can relax and be themselves, without fear of reprisal, blackmail or attack. In some parts of the UK, there is a REAL NEED for such policies.
Now, whilst those who live in the ‘SOHO bubble’ might believe everything is just hunky dory, the reality in other part of the UK is VERY different.
Homophobia is REAL. Violent attacks are REAL.
Try walking through belfast city centre on a Friday night as though you are in SOHO, and see where it gets you.
So, sorry, but I believe there is a real need for GAY spaces. We don’t all live in uber gay friendly London and Brighton.
How many hundreds of years of persecution and they dare investigate whether we’re discriminating against them? The audacity of so-called political correctness.
Protect gay-only spaces I say.
The EHRC should be working to normalise the acceptance of gayness in all of society. There’s no justification of investigating a few gay themed businesses for signs of discrimination without formal complaints, particularly when thousands of other businesses discriminate daily against gays.
Now imagine the EHRC starting investigation procedures into ethnic minorities owned businesses, only because a person from an ethnic minority has suffered racial discrimination… When are they going to investigate those businesses? Or is it a too hot a potato to handle?
We should investigate the person working inside the EHRC who came up with this preemptive idea. That is what should be investigated.
This is the correct way to proceed as it is equality in action. But, let’s face it, people, few straight people would be comfortable in a gay accomodation simply because of the shanigans that we, as gay people, do so adore. If the straight people were comfortable in that sort of environment, then by all means welcome them as friends. It is the right thing to do, after all. We do not want to discriminate against anyone as some of them do to us. We are better than that and should practice what we preach-equality for all means exactly that-for all-no exceptions. This is the ethical way to proceed forward. Do so, happily.
1) Bigot – meaningless tautology meaning simplistically difference of opinion. I may be a ‘bigot’ in your eyes, whilst you are equally a ‘bigot’ in mine. It’s incredibly weak that the only form of response to points of mine you have made is to lambast me a ‘bigot.’
2) 18? No, possibly glossing over your KS1 SATS paper would enable you to calculate that (on the basis of my birthday being July) 2010 – 1994 = 16 as opposed to 18. I can assure you that I am sixteen going on seventeen!
3) Pseudo-religious? I’ve stated before I am an agnostic/deist – I believe there to be ‘something out there’ whether it be a deity or several deities, however am not a member of an organised religion. I do play piano in my parents’ church (Liberal Anglican) sometimes though!
4) Freak? Matter of opinion! My girlfriend may agree with you lol!
With response to Chester (not sure if this is you’re name or whether you have an obsession with the delightful historic Chesire city!)
‘Sexuality’ may indeed not be a behaviour (subject to opinion.) However, engaging in sexual activity is very clearly a conscious choice.
If a hotelier (for whatever reason) does not wish heterosexual activity to be carried out in his hotel, then I firmly believe he should not have to tolerate it. It is illogical to state that he must ‘hate’ straight people.
Also, why have you posted 5 times? Is it to emphasise your lacklustre response?!
Finally, to the poster who implied I was not an ‘average teenager’ – please clarify what constitutes an ‘average teenager.’
If it is abnormal for a teenager to like right-wing journalists (ie Melanie Phillips), is it also abnormal for a teenager to like left-wing journalists (e.g Polly Toynbee?) Or is your view/perception of ‘normality’ heavily skewed by your own political persuasion?
By all means they should investigate formal complaints. But investigate for the sake of investigation? Where does this bucket stops? Where is the funding for these type of preemptive investigations coming from?
Although I agree that we can’t have it both ways, and I’m not sure how it would be enforced, I have to say I would be quite attracted to a gay-only club or bar or whatever. I have been heterosexually hit on in a gay club before which was not what I expected or wanted.
Having said that, nor would I think to sue a hotel which I had been turned away from for being gay, presuming I did not lose money because of this.
I agree that for any publicly available accomodation to advertise itself soley to one section of society should be unlawful. For “minorities” it only serves to ghettoise them. However, I assume that it would still be lawful to advertise “(whoever) especially welcome”?
Ollie, based on the rest of the internet and my own experience, most teenagers are do not tend to repeat typically right-wing, ignorant and often religiously-inspired arguments against homosexuality.
Everyone else, please do not judge Ollie by his age, as I am not much older and take this as rather an insult against teenagers, many of whom simply lack education about the relevant social issues.
What is good for the goose is also good for the gander…
The biggest threat to gay restaurants, hotels, nightclubs and pubs etc is either a lack of customers or a lack of profitability, or both, and poor service or product was often the cause of failure. I mourn the many gay restaurants of the 1970s and some of the clubs. Many of the pubs were tacky and exploitative, and not so much of a loss. If straight customers attend, it is not beyond the capability of the institution to resist losing its gayness. I see no reason for declining to serve a straight customer, and doubt if many institutions do decline so to do. If they do, they need to substantiate their reasons precisely, such as the would-be customer voicing their distastes noisily (before being reufsed service) to the annoyance of existing customers.’ otherwise they run the risk of coming before the EHRC.
As to hen parties, these are a menace wherever they go; why should gay pubs be exempt!
“No, possibly glossing over your KS1 SATS paper would enable you to calculate that”
I have 4 degrees. From a university. And in science. My mathematical level is slight above using your PinkNews handle in here for numerical calculations. Frankly I don’t care what age you are, the fact you are a fool is all that concerns me.
“It’s incredibly weak that the only form of response to points of mine you have made is to lambast me a ‘bigot.’”
You’re points are irrational and ill thought out, and have no basic is relaity or fact. Yo are unable to back up your grandiose statements without any findings, research, or evidence. Hence they are not for addressing. The term bigot is correctly applied to you as a matter of course, not in lieu of a debate.
bigot [ˈbɪgət] n “a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, as on homosexuality”
As you cannot back up your infantile statements, this label suits you well. Get used to it, child, no doubt you will hear it often throughout your sad life.
“Pseudo-religious? I’ve stated before I am an agnostic/deist”
Call yourself what you want, who am I to tell you your deluded.
Now run along, its past your bed time, and I bore of your repetition.
The government should get out of running businesses.
They can’t even run their own government well, let alone someone’s private business.
If the business accepts government hand outs, it should be subject to whatever the government says. However, I see no basis for the government to waste tax payer money to look for straight (or gay) discrimination cases that NO ONE EVEN REPORTED.
Quite honestly I wouldn’t be caught dead on a “gay only ” cruise. Given the choice between a gay or “regular” cruise I would take the later every time.
Excuse me (above post) I would take the “latter”.. even if it was “later.”
@Ollie94 — I think if you use a word, you should understand what it means. Your confusion about the meaning of tautology reflects the confusion in your reasoning.
Remember the ducks. Come back when they get the vote.
@Ollie going on seventeen — now you’re deliberately misinterpreting what I said, which was:
and we can see that your response:
is avoiding the issue, and making assumptions about my political views, which are beside the point. Here’s the question what proportion of people in your year at school, spend time posting on gay websites in support of right wing MPs and columnists ?
@Ollie94 — “If a hotelier (for whatever reason) does not wish heterosexual activity to be carried out in his hotel, then I firmly believe he should not have to tolerate it. It is illogical to state that he must ‘hate’ straight people.”
Absolutely agree, he should not have to tolerate “heterosexual activity”. He should then not open a hotel or provide a service.
The law is clear and ethical — if you provide a service you cannot discriminate.
Your argument might have some force if hotels existed where the guests engaged in sexual activity in public parts of the hotel. Thing is, in most hotels, and in fact most places, sexual activity takes places in private behind closed doors.
So you clearly believe that people have the right to dictate how the private lives of others should unfold. Probably difficult to get most people to support that idea.
The irony of this is of course that gay people will be forced to drop the “gay” label and be integrated fully into the mainstream. I have always maintained that gay defines the lifestyle more than the sexuality adopted by those who choose to construct their lives as much as possible around so-called gay establishments such as gyms, bars, clubs, hotels, saunas, etc., out of which ghettoes have formed that are proven not to be the healthiest of environments for young gay men to come out in and seek solace and understanding as they get to grips with their sexuality amid a lifestyle that can often be extremely unforgiving and threatening if you do not fit the so-called gay aesthetic ideal. I welcome the breakdown of this insidious and often soul-destroying and life-threatening lifestyle and all the trappings that surround it if such establishments are forced to merge and accept the wonderful kaleidoscope of cultures and sexualities our country embraces. Now, wouldn’t it be an ace in the hat if the hoteliers sued for discrimination were to turn up at the entrance to Chariots and demanded the right to have a steam and sauna! Love it!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Personally I don’t think gay couples should discriminate against straight ones since it only furthers self imposed segregation.
However, I also don’t believe that the rich gay identity and culture of this country that has been fought for over many centuries should be sacrificed in the name of main stream assimilationism and the sake of being PC.
If I were them, I’d make sure its overt that the hotel is aimed specifically at a gay cliental; pictures of gay couples and iconography the art and decor, pictures of gay magazines it might have been featured in, mentioning it in all the in house literature and recommending LGBT visiting sites, etc – Theres nothing to stop straight people visiting or stopping. Just as long as you don’t have ‘His and His’ dressing gowns or turn people away you can’t claim discrimination.
If I were them, I’d simply make sure it was highly overt
Presumably, Peter and Hazelmary Bull have been turned away.
I suspect that this is tit-for-tat because the jeudgement went against the Bulls. Christians are as capable of vengeful as any other group.
Heterosexuals have enough placs to stay. Why are we supposed to give up space to them? I think there is heterophobia in the community becuse of the way hets have treated us in the past.
I personally don’t have an issue with straights being in a gay accomodation as long as they understand that it is gay space as well and we do not have to change our behaviour. We get enough of that crap in society.
“such establishments are forced to merge and accept the wonderful kaleidoscope of cultures and sexualities our country embraces”
Embraces? Really? I’m still longing to see gay people behaving in public with gay abandon, as straight people do. Even in gay Soho, gay couples are made to feel awkward. No one should be made to feel embarassed for holding hands or cudling in public, but most gay people still do.
I don’t see any problem with it. Straight people are allowed into (most) gay clubs, and yet they are still regarded as gay clubs. As for gay hotels, I agree that straight people shouldn’t be discriminated against, however I don’t think straight people would even find the idea of a clothing-optional raunchfest targeted at gay men particularly appealing anyway. So why the fuss?
so there are no complaints about hetrophobic gay establishments yet they are being investigated to make sure they are not hetrophobic? umm nice to see that where gay people are concerned it is still guilty until proven innocent. Were all straight hotels investigated thusly before individual complaints were lodged against them? Seems to me that The Equality and Human Rights Commission is discriminating against gay people if they take this further.
A gay-only is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!!!
Firstly, thankyou for being the first poster on here with the ability to debate in a mature manner, without merely lambasting me a ‘bigot’ for possessing views you disagree with. It’s nice to have a civilised, ‘bigot’-free debate! Long may it continue!
The point about ‘private’ versus ‘public’ is interesting.
You state that if a prospective hotelier does not approve of a certain activity/behaviour then he should not open a hotel!
Let me ask you to think of the blind man wishing to stay at a hotel with his guide dog. If the owner of this hotel dislikes dogs, this does not equate to ‘hating’ disabled people. Should this hotelier be forced to shut his business? According to your argument, he should be forced to!
Let’s consider another example – a polyamorous trio wishing to occupy a room and a large bed? What if the hotelier has no problem with hetero-sex, or homo-sex but just doesn’t approve of poly-sex? Should he be forced to ‘shut up shop?’
Finally with reference to the ‘normal teenager’ point, I love debating. That’s it! If you’re perception of a ‘normal teenager’ is one who injects heroin, whilst binging on vodka, in a skate park, that ain’t me!
Oh, I’ve just seen Will’s ‘response’ to my post at 18:57. He’s resorted to patronisation!
Someone who (apparently) possesses 4 degrees, yet is unable to subtract 1994 from 2010, appears somewhat of an oxymoron!
Will, your sole method of debating appears to be condescending and insulting your opponent, over-using the meaningless term ‘bigot’ and being unable to practice Key Stage 1 maths.
To his credit, Harry is able to debate in a coherent and adult manner.
Personally I think that discrimination is perfectly acceptable, its part of the freedom of choice and association. If you own a business, you should be able to choose who you service for whatever reason you want – it’s YOUR business. If gays dont want non-gays in their hotels, fine, but they need to understand that it goes both ways.
Oops, let me correct my previous post.
“being unable to practice Key Stage 1 maths”
This should have read:
“being unable to practise Key Stage 1 maths”
Mike is spot on.
Why should someone permit an activity in their home that violates their wishes?
Refusing entry to a gay person is totally wrong. So is refusing entry to a person on the basis of their race/sex.
However, withholding the means of an activity (a conscious choice) from occuring is not the same thing.
I mean it now folks, night!!!
@Ollie94 — the key point is that there’s no coercion from external agencies. Your scenario:
“Let me ask you to think of the blind man wishing to stay at a hotel with his guide dog. If the owner of this hotel dislikes dogs, this does not equate to ‘hating’ disabled people. Should this hotelier be forced to shut his business? According to your argument, he should be forced to!”
Your hypothetical hotelier binds himself in a false dilemma. The only thing forcing him to shut his business is his refusal to recognize that his provision of a service obligates him not to discriminate. He argues to himself ‘If I cannot run my hotel without being able to discriminate, I must close it’ and so forces himself to close his business.
Your assertion that the hotel owner’s dislike to dogs does not equate to hating disabled people is spurious. The hotel owner hates disabled people because he refuses to extend to them the same rights as privileges as non-disabled people. His dislike of dogs is an invalid excuse.
@Ollie94 — “Why should someone permit an activity in their home that violates their wishes?”
I suspect you mean Why should someone be obligated by law to permit an activity in their home against their wishes ? and of course they shouldn’t and aren’t.
The law is clear: a place of business is not a home, regardless of whether people associated with that business live there. This isn’t a new idea.
Withholding the means of an activity, by which I presume you mean preventing something happening isn’t the point, nor is what has happened. Discriminating against people is what has happened, and is what is illegal and immoral.
@Mike — “Personally I think that discrimination is perfectly acceptable, its part of the freedom of choice and association. If you own a business, you should be able to choose who you service for whatever reason you want – it’s YOUR business. If gays dont want non-gays in their hotels, fine, but they need to understand that it goes both ways.”
Well fortunately most people disagree with you and think discrimination is not acceptable. Dress it up with phrases like “freedom of choice”, what you’re arguing for is the repeal of all laws. Again, most people think this is a ridiculous idea.
Regardless of what you think and how you capitalize your thoughts, owning a business doesn’t give you freedom from your obligations in law.
You say “ If gays dont want non-gays in their hotels …” but had you read the comments on this thread, you’d see the overwhelming majority of gay people are comfortable with the idea of non-gay people in what you describe as ‘their hotels’. In fact, the people really arguing against this — that is the people arguing for discrimination — are mainly non-gays.
At heart, what you’re advocating is the right for people like you to be able to put up signs like No Blacks in businesses you run.
@Ollie94 & Mike
I understand that Civil Society is not important to you
In a civil society we need to organise cohesion around a common language. In civil society in the 21st century, cohesion can only occur when a set of common rules are agreed upon
In a civil society the law is seen as the organising principle around which consensus can be achieved. In a predominantly secular society such as the UK, this is thought to be best configured independent of beliefs based on divine revelation; and individual prejudices against minority groups.
I thought gays were one of the protected groups, alongside other groups, let’s face it, heteros AREN’T generally discriminated against … I don’t mind this “research” but no complaints have been brought by heteros but there have been by gay people… let’s not forget if you’re gay then you’re probably going to come up against pretty bad discrimaintion far more than if you are straight….
There are still tory toff boys clubs in london, women only gyms…I agree there shouldn’t be exlusive gay pubs, hotels …I think there shouldn’t be exclusion but they should make it clear what type of establishment they are and perhaps that’s the only thing they are are doing, making it clear but with no exclusion…THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS!!
Olly94, you commented that
“‘Sexuality’ may indeed not be a behaviour (subject to opinion.) However, engaging in sexual activity is very clearly a conscious choice.”
- So, when you have sex with your girlfriend, it’s not an act of love, it’s just a meaningless mechanical act of selfish pleasure, devoid of any emotion? You can be excused for being only 16, as I doubt you have too much life experience to comment on what love is about. However, if you go through life with that sort of attitude to your partner, then you will be a very lonely person in the long run.
The most important thing about life is relationships. And when you seek to trivialise the most sacred of relationships – on a previus thread, ludicrously, by comparing it to the decision to walk a DOG – then you attack people for their nature, for who they are.
Science does tell us, we orientate to the opposite, the same, or both sexes. We do not ‘orientate’ to animals, groups of people,
The christian hoteliers were offering a commercial service to the public, with the aim of making a profit. There is nothing religious about making a profit. We do not charge people a fee plus VAT for entering our home. They are welcome to believe what they like about the nature of the world, but if they run a business, they cannot arbritrarily impose their superstition on others (and not divorcees, or non-christians for example – or muslims who might decide to break the first two commandments and pray in their hotel).
You asked another interesting question,
“If it is abnormal for a teenager to like right-wing journalists (ie Melanie Phillips), is it also abnormal for a teenager to like left-wing journalists (e.g Polly Toynbee?) Or is your view/perception of ‘normality’ heavily skewed by your own political persuasion?”
It leads me to wonder, why you believe what you actually believe? What method do you use to get nearer to the truth in any matter?
The question you asked suggests you judge people’s words / actions by their reputation, rather than the other way about. Neither Phillips nor Toynbee are likely to be right or wrong 100 percent of the time.
How do you know, for instance, whether Phillips is right or wrong about ‘intelligent design’, which she believes in, as opposed to evolution?
If you have evidence for your beliefs, then fine. But I see none. All you do is provide your subjective opinion about relationships, or expressions of love, which to you, are of no more value than walking a dog. You and your bitch (I meant that in the canine sense of course) are welcome to that opinion – but so long as it has no privilege, that’s fine by me.
“So you clearly believe that people have the right to dictate how the private lives of others should unfold”
Ironic statement fro our erudite Ollie, since he maintains he can dictate who can marry and who can’t. Ah, the hypocrisy of the conservative mind, and from one with such vast worldly experience too… how delightful.
“Will, your sole method of debating appears to be condescending and insulting your opponent, over-using the meaningless term ‘bigot’ and being unable to practice Key Stage 1 maths.”
Indeed. When you can produce one piece of scientific evidence to support your silly statements, then we can begin on anything near equal footing. Just one. Shouldn’t be too hard, should it? Go on, find ONE piece of science to back up any statement you have made!
But lets break down your nonsense argument to pass a dull morning:
(1) Any business must follow the law, and one of the laws a business must follow is anti-discrimination to blind and disabled people.
(2) As refusing a blind person entry on the basis of his dog would amount to discrimination.
(3) This law already exists, so your “hypothetical dilemma” is nothing of the sort:- he Disability Discrimination Act 1995 & 2010.
This law states:-
For those providing goods, services and facilities directly to the general public, it is unlawful:
* to refuse to serve a disabled person for a reason which relates to their disability
* to offer a sub-standard service to disabled people
* to provide / offer a service on different terms
* to fail to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments, in circumstances in which the failure makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service.
So, yes, the LAW is already clear on what should happen here. The owner cannot discriminate. If he hates gods so much, and opened a hotel, then he should fire his career advisor.
THIS is why your argument is flawed, silly, and shows a lack of understanding. Its a non-runner.
I have also seen your posts on anther site where you insist gay people should not adopt, and other anti-gay rhetoric. Ergo, bigot. Get used to the phrase. The fact it offends you so, speaks volumes.
Now, lets look at your debating. To debate, one need evidence. We have established not only do you not have any, but you cannot support any statements you make, and you make silly examples that contradict the EXISTING law. And then expect us to answer on your level. As tiresome and boring as this is, we’re indulging you.
Secondly, debating is to chnage the minds of the recipients and open yours to altering a stance based on this evidence.
Have you demonstrated a any propensity to chnage? No.
Have you changed out mind? No.
If coming into a site like this, and spouting anti-gay nonsense to a group of people who are gay amounts to futility, then why logically do something futile? So why WOULD you be here, on a gay site, trying to convince us you have a girlfriend?
Occam’s razor dictates you are not here to “debate”.
So, now you can see Ollie going on 17 (bless) how puerile and stupid your arguments are, and how I have every right to condescend to a witless teenage with too much time on his hand and who tries to model himself on Ted Harggard.
“If he hates gods so much, and opened a hotel, then he should fire his career advisor.”
“If he hates dogs so much, and opened a hotel, then he should fire his career advisor.”
Silly mistake. Dogs actually exist.
“As tiresome and boring as this is, we’re indulging you.”
Very true, Will. Ollie, the point is that you put forward arguments that are nothing of the sort and you still don’t seem to get that. Your previous argument that allowing gay people equal access to civil marriage would result in polyamory was pure speculation based on no facts whatsoever – yet you persisted with it time after time after time.
Now you’re demonstrating a lack of knowledge of laws and expecting people to talk to you as an intelligent adult. I’ve no problem with you being 16. My problem is that firstly, I feel I’d be wasting my breath; and secondly, I do actually, as I’ve said before, feel embarrased for you – NOT as an insult, I mean that honestly. You’re making yourself seem painfully immature and uneducated and it makes me wince on your behalf.
Finally, others have said this and I suspect you haven’t bothered to take it in because you think they’re merely making up things to have a go at you, the fact that a 16 year old boy spends so much time on a gay site suggests that you have unresolved issues about your own sexuality.
Nice comments, adrian and will.
Poor Ollie. You’re out of your depth here. Adrian, Harry and Will have made some very good arguments, but you continue to make some serious mistakes in your “blind dog” analogy. Ever cross your mind to listen and alter your views accordingly? Perhaps you’re just not capable of that yet. Maybe in a few years, with some experience and better education, you might be able to make a good point and adapt to new information put to you. Until then, you’re just an insecure teenager posting hate on a gay site, and being seriously outmanoeuvred by smarter and more educated people. Sorry, Ollie, but that’s pretty much the long and short of it. Iris hit the nail on the head in her last comment, its embarrassing to watch you in here.
The theoretical discussion about ‘equality works both ways’ is missing the point of the issue. Whereas a tiny minority might simply NEED protected, exclusive places to maintain its culture, a strong minority just uses the exclusion politics for the purpose of bullying said minorities. Straights outnumber Gays by 95:5 and they certainly don’t need protection against unjust discrimination by Gays to access services. Same is true for the job market: we simply MUST discriminate in order to repair at least some damages caused by straights in a ‘silent’ but still effective discrimination against our people.
“My problem is that firstly, I feel I’d be wasting my breath; and secondly, I do actually, as I’ve said before, feel embarrassed for you”
Iris, you’re quite right here. And the reality here is that Ollie can go either of two ways: he’ll grow up and learn more about gay people, changing his beliefs and opening his mind. Or the other path, actually get more insular and parochial as time goes by and we end up with another Stephen Green, a right wing hypocrite that thinks he can dictate to others how they can live their lives and all the while beating his wife and children into a pulp. And lets be honest, sociality does not need more Stephen Green’s, its need more enlightened youth to progress the democratic rights of others which benefit all society.
Poor Ollie must feel very excluded in life… my own experience with my younger brother is that most teenagers, in fact all I have met, are more liberal and pluralistic (not to mention logical) then our pal here, who thinks “debating” with gay people using silly statements about polygamy is something worthwhile on a CV. One lonely little boy in the making.
Whilst I agree that ‘gay only’ and ‘men only’ establishments are possibly discriminatory – there is sometimes a need to use such terminology, namely where there is likely to be ‘sex on premises’ activity. Take for example a ‘men only’ bar. That says to me as a gay guy, that there is likely to be at least a dark room in the establishment and therefore sex. Some businesses need to clearly define who their target audience is so not to offend others e.g. men only bars, gay saunas and some gay hotels etc where there is likely to be ‘sex on premises’. This is both the case in the US (hotels) and Europe (bars and saunas). Of course the way around it for hoteliers is to advertise as ‘ gay + clothing optional’ which should leave no questions for the ‘unsuspecting’ or easily offended heterosexual. Ultimately there is a need to ensure that the gay ‘user or clientele are offered a safe environment and conversely others are not offended by the possible actions of that clientele.
I don’t approve of discrimination at all, but:
Do have a cheeky smirk on my face when I think that straights might be prejudiced against in the same manner that we have had to take on the chin, for years! Nay, centuries!
Gloves and hands etc..
Aren’t there many straight (and open-minded) allies of gay people who should be welcomed into predominantly gay establishments? People should be bounced or banned for breaking rules of conduct, not for being the “wrong” kind of people.
@Dermot — hear hear !
How wrong and confused can a journalist be…
EHRC now targets ‘gay-only’ guesthouses. Just in case any straight Christian fundamentalists were planning a night in one
They should of course be investigated if they are genuinely saying ‘straights’ aren’t allowed stay. What I thought though, is that these places were just marketing themselves to the gay market, by saying things like ‘gay friendly’- in doing which they made ‘straights’ less likely to want to visit.
This seems just like targeting any other market segment- for example M&S mainly targets the older population with its marketing, making the younger generation less likely to want to shop there. This isn’t discrimination, its just marketing.
Saying this though, if places are genuinely discriminating against ‘straights’ they should be investigated.
Some readers of the Mail and Telegraph are already asking for the Bulls to be pardoned, because they say “gays also discriminate and create apartheid”. The same type of people who blame black south africans for the apartheid…
Here is what the Christian Institute are saying about the story . . .
Commenting on the B&B case, the Christian Institute make the following allegation in thier article.
“Since the court ruling, the guesthouse has been targeted by numerous homosexual couples attempting to book double rooms in an apparent attempt to destroy the business.Mrs Bull, 66, has also received abusive and menacing phone calls.”
For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. A couple questions strike me:
1. What does “numerous” mean ?
2. How is it an attempt to destroy the business ?
Ny the way – I am absolutely fine with the EHRC investigating. No one should be banned from any venue on account of their sexual orientation.
NB – It is PERFECTLY alright to ban hen parties or stag parties by the way – it is not necessary to be straight to be involved in such groups.
I think straight people should expand their ….minds and book themselves in to a room with a sling in Bournemouth or wherever.
But seriously, it’s time we stopped living in a ghetto. There is no real story here – people should stop squealing.
I agree with it myself. We were appalled by the B&Bs against gays so we MUST go by this investigation. We have a gay club where I live but it’s not gay only. And that’s how it should be. I don’t agree with the men only clubs (straight gay or other wise) and I feel the same about women only places too. As it has already been said if we want to be accepted we cannot discriminate against straight people. It makes us no better than those straight people who discriminate against us!
The anti-discrimination laws appear to be working.
If the ERHC discovers any gay hotels that are found to be in breach of anti-discrimination laws then hopefully they will be advised
to change their policy before any members of the public are inconvenienced by being illegally turned away.
It’s time for B&B’s to concentrate on providing well maintained, comfortable accommodation and a quality breakfast for guests …
which is what we all really want from a non-discriminatory B&B Hotel.
Segregated straight-themed, gay -themed, white-themed hotels don’t belong in the 21st Century
I see Ollie has done the usual intelligent thing when faced with stronger counter arguments: – disappearing.
Isn’t it odd how they all share that same trait. Skinner does the very same too.
Maybe because in their heart of hearts they know they’re wrong, Will?
Ollie never had any real arguments and he refused to expand on what he said nor respond to queries – yet he complained that no-one would debate with him. All his comments shouted ‘one unhappy boy’ to me. Sad – in the original sense of the word.
@Iris, Will — he’s still about ! He’s on:
but this is part of the normal sequence of events. They join several threads, and eventually retreat to a single one, and then disappear completely, leaving a lingering feeling of unpleasantness.
Yeah, Harry, I saw him there. Its like he cut and pasted the same old repetitive argument again. Same old polygamy crap. He must be obsessed with threesomes or something like that. One disturbed little puppy, another Stephen Green rising through the ranks, practising shaping is dull claws on a few gay people he thinks will put up with his nonsense.
‘… practising shaping his dull claws …’
Ha ! I must admit I’m doing the same — I think my claws are getting much sharper as a result though.
Thanks, Harry – off to look at that thread now. Funny how the fundies always seem to come late to threads, isn’t it? Behind in so many ways…
Straight girl with a gay twin brother. He and I like to take holidays together with our respective boyfriends and we usually do stay in gay-friendly hotels. They’re fun and you meet great people. I don’t think you have to worry overmuch about the sort of straight people you get at gay hotels–really, most of us are completely aware what we’re getting into. We’d all be pretty upset if either of us were told we couldn’t stay somewhere! (Though none of us are married, so the fundies probably wouldn’t take us anyway…)
I truly feel sorry for younger gay men and women these days who have no idea how safe and welcoming exclusively gay spaces were in the 1980′s. The threatening, atmosphere that exists in places such as Manchester’s gay village now has become the norm and is tolerated.
The Crime Street Maps that were launched this month revealed that Canal Street is the worst place for violent crime in the whole of Manchester city centre.
So well done those of you who are determined to destroy our safe spaces with your misplaced drive for ‘equality’ and your political correctness.
We are a tiny minority of the population and unless we protect our community and spaces, the day will come when they don’t exist anymore.
the answer to that is a greater police presence.
those golden days you refer to were ones where the ONLY place to go was the ‘Village.’ We’ve moved a long way from that now.
Of course violent and threatening behaviour is wrong and should be eradicated – we do that by coming down hard on the perpetrators like a ton of bricks, not creating little gay-only ghettoes.
“your misplaced drive for ‘equality’ and your political correctness.”
I hardly think improving social acceptance and legal rights for gay people is “misplaced” or “political correctness”. Living in the past, is, well, just that, living in the past. The 80′s are gone, and we have achieved so much since then from a legal point of view. And these improvements for gay people will no doubt be passed on to save more of the next generating from suicide and depression associated with being considered an outcast in society, or “immoral”. Things may not be perfect yet, far from it, but not all of us lament the passing of social exclusion.
What about women only gyms? What about homes only for women of domestic abuse, where do men of domestic abuse go.
There are many instancies to question.
Do I smell entrapment by Christian groups though with regards Gay only spaces?
@Jock S. Trap . . . As far as I know, there is one refuge for men of domestic abuse; and it is based in London.
Discrimination goes both ways…
Occasionally there is a case for provision of segregated facilities where a specific need has to be met. In general, however, it is only necessary to indicate that a particular facility is aimed at catering for a particular group of people. Loads of heterosexual people go to “gay” venues just because they like them. Nothing wrong with this. I see a point in facilities that are mostly aimed at gay people, but if straight people want to use them too then they shouldn’t be turned away. Hardly does much good for the cause of normalising LGBT people in society if straight people are banned from gay venues.
INTERESTING DEBATE THUS FAR
I have been gay and out since 1989, and I don’t believe that a gay hotel or bar accepting straight people will damage its business nor the gay culture… we should show straight people what does sharing means =) stephan
I agree if a straight couple wants to go why not? But if the hotel owners really feel that strongly make it a “Men’s resort” straight men can come if they want but it’s only for men not their wives