The Scottish B&B that turfed out the two gay people...?
20 July 2004, 03:17 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
You seem to make a distinction there between "black" and "gay".
It's almost as if you're implying that refusing "blacks" would be outrageous.
Both are prejudice - plain & simple.
It's almost as if you're implying that refusing "blacks" would be outrageous.
Both are prejudice - plain & simple.
20 July 2004, 03:22 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ProperCharlie
seems to be a lot of posts disappearing from this thread...
...are S_AP's antics with his child bride too rich for public consumption?
...are S_AP's antics with his child bride too rich for public consumption?
Child bride. lol
20 July 2004, 03:22 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the guy refused to put up a male/female couple because he had doubts that they were married and didn't want extramarital sex going on in his house, would there be such an outcry? No.
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
20 July 2004, 03:23 PM
#97
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ProperCharlie
seems to be a lot of posts disappearing from this thread...
...are S_AP's antics with his child bride too rich for public consumption?
...are S_AP's antics with his child bride too rich for public consumption?
20 July 2004, 03:24 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkO
If the guy refused to put up a male/female couple because he had doubts that they were married and didn't want extramarital sex going on in his house, would there be such an outcry? No.
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
20 July 2004, 03:24 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkO
If the guy refused to put up a male/female couple because he had doubts that they were married and didn't want extramarital sex going on in his house, would there be such an outcry? No.
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
Thats right.
20 July 2004, 03:25 PM
#101
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkO
He can make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of how daft/prejudiced they may be. At the end of the day it's his business that'll suffer.
Maybe there's a market for B&B accomodation un-touched by sexual deviants (assuming that s_AP hasn't snuk in the back door)
20 July 2004, 03:27 PM
#102
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harvey
Jasey. You talking about my mate Andy. F by any chance/
Harvey - stop editing your post
Last edited by jasey; 20 July 2004 at 03:29 PM.
20 July 2004, 03:41 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post seems to be varying between opinion and fact.
People can have the opinion that he was right to do as he did for whatever reason it was.
The fact is however that this sort of thing is governed by anti dicrimination legislation and if he was prepared to stand up in court and say he refused entry on the grounds of their seuality he would be found guilty.
The punishment would be fairly minor I suspect but I don't think there would be any doubt on the outcome
People can have the opinion that he was right to do as he did for whatever reason it was.
The fact is however that this sort of thing is governed by anti dicrimination legislation and if he was prepared to stand up in court and say he refused entry on the grounds of their seuality he would be found guilty.
The punishment would be fairly minor I suspect but I don't think there would be any doubt on the outcome
20 July 2004, 03:42 PM
#111
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harvey
Post edited to correct / for ? due to ham fists on keyboard which as far as I know is not covered by European civil rights at present unless any P.C. devotee knows different.
Jasey. You talking about my mate Andy. F by any chance? Ginger haired Scots?
v
Jasey. You talking about my mate Andy. F by any chance.
I would play spot the difference but I'd probably get in trouble
Why can't I turn off Italics since copying the second bit of text
20 July 2004, 03:44 PM
#112
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kob999
This post seems to be varying between opinion and fact.
People can have the opinion that he was right to do as he did for whatever reason it was.
The fact is however that this sort of thing is governed by anti dicrimination legislation and if he was prepared to stand up in court and say he refused entry on the grounds of their seuality he would be found guilty.
The punishment would be fairly minor I suspect but I don't think there would be any doubt on the outcome
People can have the opinion that he was right to do as he did for whatever reason it was.
The fact is however that this sort of thing is governed by anti dicrimination legislation and if he was prepared to stand up in court and say he refused entry on the grounds of their seuality he would be found guilty.
The punishment would be fairly minor I suspect but I don't think there would be any doubt on the outcome
20 July 2004, 03:46 PM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kob999
The fact is however that this sort of thing is governed by anti dicrimination legislation and if he was prepared to stand up in court and say he refused entry on the grounds of their seuality he would be found guilty. The punishment would be fairly minor I suspect but I don't think there would be any doubt on the outcome
20 July 2004, 03:51 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkO
Why would he state that though? He could just say "I didn't like the look of them". As the proprietor, he has the right to refuse custom to any person without having to give a reason.
Bang on. Correct. Its that simple. So, end of thread.
