eldar1 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 again i agree simie, this woman finds homosexuality unsavourey. her clientele maybe similar in her thinking, maybe she actually doesn't have a negative pov about gays. maybe shes just protecting her business by asking gays not to stay and not put off her regular customers.[/qoute] i'm trying to make sense of this argument but i'm having trouble with it, are you saying that she might be fine with gays, but her clientele isn't and therefore she banned them? Is she a mind reader or does the registration form ask you what your views on homosexuality are? you are now guessing and/or attributing thoughts to a group of people you have never met and don't know. it's akin to someone on some board somewhere else saying "yeah lazyphil over on thai360 is the biggest pro-gay guy ever, he's constantly telling everyone to be gay" which as we know is far from the truth. also quick question, why are we assuming that there will be gay sex involved? Isn't it possible that could have just slept together like any normal couple? btw all, i should have used jamaica not uganda as an example. but of course white arrogant liberals are more enlightend than blacks of jamaica etc From the Wikipedia entry on LBGT rights in Jamaica: Amnesty International: "Gay men and lesbian women have been beaten, cut, burned, raped and shot on account of their sexuality"; and gays and lesbians constitute one of the "most marginalized and persecuted communities in Jamaica" If this is what you advocate then you are bigot no two words about, a straight up bigot. I am truly glad that liberalism is the dominant school of thought in europe, because killing someone for their sexual orientation is wrong beyond believe. hey simmie, what was that about "just because people don't like gays, they don't want to send them to the gas chamber"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 i am not a bigot or advoate violence to gays. i suggest a business owner should have some say to whom uses their services. europe may be a liberal society, but its got the most wicked and brutal history of mankind. liberalism is just window dressing covering its twisted black heart that beats beneath it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 [color:red]Been to Eden a couple of times in the past and the girls brought all their accessories, which they used on each other. [/color] You sure you didn't porked by one of the ladies? Or maybe she used extra KY? Was she wearing one of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Fact of the matter is that she is discriminating against homosexuals and that is wrong, to defend her means you are agreeing with discrimination. To take the bar example; she opens a bar and then is shocked to find that people come there to drink. And Homosexuals are the first and only sub-culture to be discriminated against? I remember back in the UK 25 years ago seeing signs on country pub doors stating "No Bikers Allowed", so when a bunch of educated professionals who chilled out on a Sunday by taking the bikes out and having lunch in a country pub suddenly become a sub-culture to be avoided like the plague. On more than one occasion I have revisited some of these places whilst on business trips, ie in a car and wearing shirt and tie, ordered a meal and when it arrived spoken to the manager and told him I cannot possibly have it since I am a Biker who he refused to serve the previous Sunday. Older Brit BM's will be able to tell you of the days when bars had signs "No Travellers" or "No Irish" on open display. As far as this story is concerned I support the Guest House owners in their decision. It is a "Guest House" ie Their House for paying Guests and as such they have every right to decide who they allow or do not allow to be a Guest in their own house, if they wish to turn down business then it is their choice. The Equality Act 2006 does not apply to Private Individuals. I doubt that very many BM's would be happy to be told by Government that they had to allow anybody to be a guest in their own home (paying or not). Whilst not in agreement with the reason given for refusing a room, I am in full agreement with the owners standing up to big brother government policy and standing by their rights to have freedom of choice in private matters. Supporting this couple is not supporting homophobia, its about stopping government policies intruding into private lives and making us puppets of the nanny state telling us what we can and cannot do. Orwells profecy was only a few years out and even Fritz Lang could see into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a common sign displayed at the entrances of small businesses in my country, especially restaurants. I don't think the disclaimer carries much weight in court, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldar1 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 And Homosexuals are the first and only sub-culture to be discriminated against? I remember back in the UK 25 years ago seeing signs on country pub doors stating "No Bikers Allowed", so when a bunch of educated professionals who chilled out on a Sunday by taking the bikes out and having lunch in a country pub suddenly become a sub-culture to be avoided like the plague. On more than one occasion I have revisited some of these places whilst on business trips, ie in a car and wearing shirt and tie, ordered a meal and when it arrived spoken to the manager and told him I cannot possibly have it since I am a Biker who he refused to serve the previous Sunday. Older Brit BM's will be able to tell you of the days when bars had signs "No Travellers" or "No Irish" on open display. I know it discrimination has happened in the past and not only to homosexuals but to a whole variety of different groups, but it still does not make it right, it was wrong then and it's wrong now. As far as this story is concerned I support the Guest House owners in their decision. It is a "Guest House" ie Their House for paying Guests and as such they have every right to decide who they allow or do not allow to be a Guest in their own house, if they wish to turn down business then it is their choice. The Equality Act 2006 does not apply to Private Individuals. I doubt that very many BM's would be happy to be told by Government that they had to allow anybody to be a guest in their own home (paying or not). Whilst not in agreement with the reason given for refusing a room, I am in full agreement with the owners standing up to big brother government policy and standing by their rights to have freedom of choice in private matters. Supporting this couple is not supporting homophobia, its about stopping government policies intruding into private lives and making us puppets of the nanny state telling us what we can and cannot do. Orwells profecy was only a few years out and even Fritz Lang could see into the future. I appreciate the stance against a nanny state and i too believe the government should stay out of as much as possible and let us get on with our lives. However i also think that our government has a duty to ensure that every citizen is treated equally and fairly, especially on the 4 fundamental parts of human being, his/her race,color,creed and sexual orientation because neither of these are person conscious choices but something you are born with and cannot change. For everything else discrimination is still a bit of a dick move but should be tolerated. I agree on the Orwell part though but more because of the erosion of civil liberties and privacy due to what i believe in England is called the "health and safety brigade" and the anti-terrorism laws. best we don't get into a discussion about that though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simie Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Elder, yet again in your PC zeal you are trying to imply something that is not correct or misquote me. First of all it was hatred in LP's case now according to you I don't like gays. I've no personal dislike against gays as people. What I disike is the attempts by government and others to take it out of the privicy of there own homes and force it down everyones throats and also try and teach children that homosexuality is "normal" which it is not. Simie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldar1 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 somehow you seem to keep misreading what i say. in your previous post you said that just because people don't like gays they don't want to send them to death camps (paraphrasing here) LP later stated that he liked the approach that UAE, Iran, Uganda and Jamaica had towards gays. My comment to you is that there most certainly are people that think violence towards gays is a not a bad thing even in this small sample size of this board. I did not at any point say that you personally have a hatred against them. As for your unending quests against "PC" well i think you are confusing two entirely different subject as anti-discrimination has nothing to do with PC. Lastly being gay is normal just like everything else it's a part of who people are. Homosexuality has been part of the human race since the very beginning and will continue to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 The right of a business to refuse service is a sticky issue and I think Eldar position is because this was one of the key issues in the civil rights movement in the US in the 60’s. In principal I agree with him, but there is indeed a line somewhere that a person should be able to make a choice about who stays in their house, paid or not. On the other side, the woman has chosen to run a business out of their home and I’m just not sure they can turn someone away simply because of sexual orientation. I do think the woman was being somewhat ridiculous. As others have said, it would not surprise me to have her not welcome certain non-whites as well. Wonder what she would do if a white woman showed up with a very dark East Asian guy and they were not married. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 It stops being their home when it becomes a business. When it becomes a business, then it must abide by all the relevant laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.