Judge rules in favor of women denied room at Hawaii bed and breakfast because they're gay

Hi Jennifer,

But, I bet that if the owner's religion was Islam -- there would have been no lawsuit and not judgment.  The only reason is because the owner is Christian -- and Christians have no right to be comfortable in their own business.

No agenda?  Are you kidding?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

The public accommodations law prohibits establishments that provide lodging to transient guests from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, race, color, ancestry, religion, disability and sex —including gender identity or expression.

_________

The persecution of Christians in the US is astonishing, isn't it NB?  I mean, why should Christians have to follow the law if they don't want to?

Hi all you thousands of readers that never post. Trot on over to my other thread and read about how older people are choosing to live together without the benefit of that sacred institution-marriage. They are bent on destroying our way of life. 

I’ve suspected  that Bestyaking and Bill are the same person. It has revealed that thousands read her Bestyakings as Bill also claims.

 ---------------------------

She didn't specify that the thousands that "read but never post" were reading her posts in particular.  I've never seen her claim that she has a reader following. 

You're right canade, and thanks for pointing that out. 

Like many stories (the NRA tee-shirt?), perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye,..er, press.

Recently in the UK, a woman sued a hotel famous as a wedding venue. It seems she and her future hubby were denied use of the facilities even though they were paying a great deal of cash upfront. The woman had inadvertently been sent a copy of an email from the wedding planner stating the couple wasn't their kind of customer. The woman told the press that even though she was an attorney and her husband-to-be was a television producer, he shaved his head and wore an earring. The hotel was clearly guilty of discriminating.

Once the woman's image was broadcast, it became known that while she was an attorney, she worked on a sex television network fulfilling the fantasies of callers in and her fiance' was her producer. It still might be illegal to say "no" to the customer, but there may very well be more compelling reasons.

And, while I know Best's personal answer to this question, how many of the B&B's guests would never return if they were subjected at their mealtime to two women sucking face? What kind of reviews would they give? The poor B&B is the loser all the way around.

I am sure the B&B could have a simple standard in place of no PDA that would encompass all customers and if two women were sucking face as you put it, they could be told to leave.   That would not be considered discrimination as it would encompass all customers and be nothing more than a simple request of decency on the behalf of all customers, gay and straight.   But to prohibit the customers simply based on their sexual preference is point blank discrimination.   The judge ruled correctly

And, while I know Best's personal answer to this question, how many of the B&B's guests would never return if they were subjected at their mealtime to two women sucking face? What kind of reviews would they give? The poor B&B is the loser all the way around.

==================

What's to say the women would even be eating there? What's to say they'd be "sucking face"? Is that a big problem in restaurants, lesbians "sucking face"?  How would other guests handle a man and a woman "sucking face" at mealtime? The "poor b&b" wouldn't be losing if they followed the law, and have probably had gay couples that stayed there and didn't know it. If they are allowed to discriminate, does that mean all businesses can do the same?  Can they refuse a room to a "brown" person that is with a "white" person?? You do know that still "offends" some people.

======================

The public accommodations law prohibits establishments that provide lodging to transient guests from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, race, color, ancestry, religion, disability and sex —including gender identity or expression.

People that run a bed and breakfast typically use their own home for the business. If that is the case, and it appears so in this event,  then the owners should have a right to refuse a room to anyone they want.

Even a business in a home has to follow the law and rules. Think of the thousands of little motels that are run by people who live in them. They still have to follow the law.

Once the woman's image was broadcast, it became known that while she was an attorney, she worked on a sex television network fulfilling the fantasies of callers in and her fiance' was her producer. It still might be illegal to say "no" to the customer, but there may very well be more compelling reasons.

=======================

What's it to the hotel what the woman does for a living?

_____________

Doesn't matter if it is their home.  They are offering services to the public for pay, therefore they have to obey the law just like any other business. 

The hotel has an upper class image to maintain. It may be illegal to turn down this couple based on their lifestyle, but the hotel ultimately said they didn't want  them...now they're being sued.

BTW, have lunch with a known hooker five days a week and see how long it takes for someone to offer you some money for a "date."

This "standard" could be challenged legally by anyone. As long as individuals keep their clothes on and don't engage in actual coitus, there don't seem to be any laws on the books to forbid PDAs.

A  full blown make out session could be challenged, but they would fail.   It would likely fall under decency and/or public disturbance laws.    Just as when people wear offensive t-shirts.   These fall under those type of ordinances as well.   I remember seeing a kid in front of walmart get a citation because he had a shirt on that said -- written upside down --- "if you can read this then I am eating your *****"    He was shocked.   Thought it was covered under free speech, after all it was just a shirt.    

And just to clarify, I am not nor was I originally referring to simple PDA.    That could easily be challenged.   I am not talking about a gay couple holding hands, hugging, or even sharing a kiss.  I was more referring to heavy make out sessions which is what most homophobes seem to think is going to happen once those dastardly gays get their well manicured claws in our pristine society.

BTW, have lunch with a known hooker five days a week and see how long it takes for someone to offer you some money for a "date."

No idea what this even means.