gay only resort!!! is this legal....??

First topic message reminder :

http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

or is it hypocrisy....

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
that is equality, well said and to be honest i would rather they slobber over each other in the privacy of their gay clubs and hotels than force their perversion on normal people..

the difference is in the advertising
IF the cake shop said "Any Hetero-normative decoration of you choice" then well that is the product they are selling but they didn't say that they said "decoration of your choice" so they are discriminating now because they are refusing to sell homosexuals the cake with "decoration of your choice" which is the product they sell.

I don't really agree with gay bars it is still discrimination. i know down here it is under "the management reserves the right to refuse service" which almost all alcohol selling venues have (originally based on stopping drunk/disorderly patrons) and other clubs will refuse you for the shoes or shirt your wearing so much of a muchness

I think it would still be unlawful discrimination if they had advertised in that manner.

I was once refused entry to a bar for wearing "trainers".

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
that is equality, well said and to be honest i would rather they slobber over each other in the privacy of their gay clubs and hotels than force their perversion on normal people..

the difference is in the advertising
IF the cake shop said "Any Hetero-normative decoration of you choice" then well that is the product they are selling but they didn't say that they said "decoration of your choice" so they are discriminating now because they are refusing to sell homosexuals the cake with "decoration of your choice" which is the product they sell.

I don't really agree with gay bars it is still discrimination. i know down here it is under "the management reserves the right to refuse service" which almost all alcohol selling venues have (originally based on stopping drunk/disorderly patrons) and other clubs will refuse you for the shoes or shirt your wearing so much of a muchness

I think it would still be unlawful discrimination if they had advertised in that manner.

I was once refused entry to a bar for wearing "trainers".

There's a bar near me that won't let you in if you're wearing a ball cap or torn jeans. As dress codes go I think it's a good one

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it would still be unlawful discrimination if they had advertised in that manner.

I was once refused entry to a bar for wearing "trainers".

There's a bar near me that won't let you in if you're wearing a ball cap or torn jeans. As dress codes go I think it's a good one

Torn jeans are fashionable here - you can buy them already torn.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it would still be unlawful discrimination if they had advertised in that manner.

I was once refused entry to a bar for wearing "trainers".

There's a bar near me that won't let you in if you're wearing a ball cap or torn jeans. As dress codes go I think it's a good one

Torn jeans are fashionable here - you can buy them already torn.

Yeah, one of those crazy things like buying distressed jeans that look 100 years old the day you buy them ... it's pretty much all you can get any more, too

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

or is it hypocrisy....

Don't know but I'd love to holiday there! Gay men know how to party and I would feel very free and easy

I used to gig in gay bars and I mean this in all honesty, they were the best nights I ever gigged.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

or is it hypocrisy....

change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

The Devil, You Know wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

or is it hypocrisy....

change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

or is it hypocrisy....

I am not sure what the Daddyhole sauna entails

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

What is the difference? There was one suggestion that only gay men are allowed because a gay woman or straight person might not want to see gay men in the nude. Would that not work the other way around?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

I am willing to bet if there was a private members club with a straight only policy it would be challenged in the courts.

Why would any gays be unhappy about a straight-only resort?

Tbh I like the mix. When I lived in the Maldives it was a honeymoon island and they had straights and gays alike; everyone mixed well no one died.

I have no problem with a holiday company catering for gays - and I would bet they wouldn't turn you away if you said you wanted to holiday there but was straight! They may wonder why you'd want to go (ie nothing catered for you) bit is sure they soul take your money!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
that is equality, well said and to be honest i would rather they slobber over each other in the privacy of their gay clubs and hotels than force their perversion on normal people..

the difference is in the advertising
IF the cake shop said "Any Hetero-normative decoration of you choice" then well that is the product they are selling but they didn't say that they said "decoration of your choice" so they are discriminating now because they are refusing to sell homosexuals the cake with "decoration of your choice" which is the product they sell.

I don't really agree with gay bars it is still discrimination. i know down here it is under "the management reserves the right to refuse service" which almost all alcohol selling venues have (originally based on stopping drunk/disorderly patrons) and other clubs will refuse you for the shoes or shirt your wearing so much of a muchness

I think it would still be unlawful discrimination if they had advertised in that manner.

I was once refused entry to a bar for wearing "trainers".

There's a bar near me that won't let you in if you're wearing a ball cap or torn jeans. As dress codes go I think it's a good one

That's why I say school,uniforms are there for a reason and why should parents complain if that's the rule!!!??


See??!!!

eddie wrote:Why would any gays be unhappy about a straight-only resort?

Tbh I like the mix. When I lived in the Maldives it was a honeymoon island and they had straights and gays alike; everyone mixed well no one died.

I have no problem with a holiday company catering for gays - and I would bet they wouldn't turn you away if you said you wanted to holiday there but was straight! They may wonder why you'd want to go (ie nothing catered for you) bit is sure they soul take your money!

They would turn you away if you were straight - that's the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Why would any gays be unhappy about a straight-only resort?

Tbh I like the mix. When I lived in the Maldives it was a honeymoon island and they had straights and gays alike; everyone mixed well no one died.

I have no problem with a holiday company catering for gays - and I would bet they wouldn't turn you away if you said you wanted to holiday there but was straight! They may wonder why you'd want to go (ie nothing catered for you) bit is sure they soul take your money!

They would turn you away if you were straight - that's the point.

Then it's the same - but reversed - of the man refusing to make a gay cake, is it not?

If he's wrong then this company are wrong.

If he's within his rights to refuse then this company are within their rights to refuse.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They would turn you away if you were straight - that's the point.

Then it's the same - but reversed - of the man refusing to make a gay cake, is it not?

If he's wrong then this company are wrong.

If he's within his rights to refuse then this company are within their rights to refuse.

No, because the people who own the resort get round the law by saying it's a private members club. The bakery is not a private members club.

Yes I get all that lol I'm saying the theory is the same.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

What is the difference? There was one suggestion that only gay men are allowed because a gay woman or straight person might not want to see gay men in the nude. Would that not work the other way around?

The difference is that gay people risk being harassed because of their orientation at a regular resort, while straight people are not. An all-gay resort is a place gay people can feel safer from that sort of thing.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

What is the difference? There was one suggestion that only gay men are allowed because a gay woman or straight person might not want to see gay men in the nude. Would that not work the other way around?

The difference is that gay people risk being harassed because of their orientation at a regular resort, while straight people are not. An all-gay resort is a place gay people can feel safer from that sort of thing.

Ben do you,think it's okay to have an all-straight resort then?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What is the difference? There was one suggestion that only gay men are allowed because a gay woman or straight person might not want to see gay men in the nude. Would that not work the other way around?

The difference is that gay people risk being harassed because of their orientation at a regular resort, while straight people are not. An all-gay resort is a place gay people can feel safer from that sort of thing.

Oh I see. Legally speaking though, there is no difference, or there shouldn't be.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

What is the difference? There was one suggestion that only gay men are allowed because a gay woman or straight person might not want to see gay men in the nude. Would that not work the other way around?

The difference is that gay people risk being harassed because of their orientation at a regular resort, while straight people are not. An all-gay resort is a place gay people can feel safer from that sort of thing.

Ben do you,think it's okay to have an all-straight resort then?

I think if it was operated as a private club, not advertised as being open to the general public, then that would be fine. Bigots get the right to private clubs, too.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben do you,think it's okay to have an all-straight resort then?

I think if it was operated as a private club, not advertised as being open to the general public, then that would be fine. Bigots get the right to private clubs, too.

Hmmmm, I don't think it's fair to label others as bigots when this is a male gay-only resort - that's pretty bigoted.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
change it to straight resort and see the court cases fly

You do see the difference, of course.

What is the difference? There was one suggestion that only gay men are allowed because a gay woman or straight person might not want to see gay men in the nude. Would that not work the other way around?

The difference is that gay people risk being harassed because of their orientation at a regular resort, while straight people are not. An all-gay resort is a place gay people can feel safer from that sort of thing.

Ben do you,think it's okay to have an all-straight resort then?

I think if it was operated as a private club, not advertised as being open to the general public, then that would be fine. Bigots get the right to private clubs, too.

I don't have a problem with any private clubs tbh. If a company wants to cater to an all-gay holiday or a holiday for wheelchair-users only, I think it's a pretty nice idea tbh.

I'm not one who'd use a straight-only holiday place though personally.

What do we think about an all-White or all-Black place though? That seems a bit more weird!!

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I think if it was operated as a private club, not advertised as being open to the general public, then that would be fine. Bigots get the right to private clubs, too.

I don't have a problem with any private clubs tbh. If a company wants to cater to an all-gay holiday or a holiday for wheelchair-users only, I think it's a pretty nice idea tbh.

I'm not one who'd use a straight-only holiday place though personally.

What do we think about an all-White or all-Black place though? That seems a bit more weird!!

I don't think that's allowed, even for private members clubs.

No,me neither. I think it sounds horrible too!
I wouldn't use an "all" anything tbh rags, I do like a good mix of people whether here or abroad....my other half and I loved getting drunk with the gay couples in the Maldives - they were among the best nights we had, always a belly-laugh to be had!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben do you,think it's okay to have an all-straight resort then?

I think if it was operated as a private club, not advertised as being open to the general public, then that would be fine. Bigots get the right to private clubs, too.

Hmmmm, I don't think it's fair to label others as bigots when this is a male gay-only resort - that's pretty bigoted.

Like I said before, I think the idea behind this resort is that it's a safe place, not that it was set up to discriminate against straight men or women.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmmm, I don't think it's fair to label others as bigots when this is a male gay-only resort - that's pretty bigoted.

Like I said before, I think the idea behind this resort is that it's a safe place, not that it was set up to discriminate against straight men or women.

They discriminate against gay women too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmmm, I don't think it's fair to label others as bigots when this is a male gay-only resort - that's pretty bigoted.

Like I said before, I think the idea behind this resort is that it's a safe place, not that it was set up to discriminate against straight men or women.

They discriminate against gay women too.

"Gay women" being a subset of "women," I felt comfortable leaving it at just "women."

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They discriminate against gay women too.

"Gay women" being a subset of "women," I felt comfortable leaving it at just "women."

So you think that only gay men should have a safe haven, and not gay women?

My objection is really to you calling others bigots when it's the owners of the resort who are discriminating. I'm not going to call them bigots though.

Where did you get the idea I don't think gay women should be able to have a safe haven?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Where did you get the idea I don't think gay women should be able to have a safe haven?

Well your reasoning was that gay people risk being harassed and need to feel safe, but since this place only caters for gay men, not gay women, your reasoning falls down a bit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Where did you get the idea I don't think gay women should be able to have a safe haven?

Well your reasoning was that gay people risk being harassed and need to feel safe, but since this place only caters for gay men, not gay women, your reasoning falls down a bit.

OR he supports lesbians having there own club too

At the end of the day, this is about whether someone who owns or rents property should be able to set up a club with membership qualifications that meets there. Of course they should be able to; there's no compelling reason to take away that freedom.

Ben_Reilly wrote:At the end of the day, this is about whether someone who owns or rents property should be able to set up a club with membership qualifications that meets there. Of course they should be able to; there's no compelling reason to take away that freedom.

OK, but there's no need for you to say that "bigots" can have their own clubs too.

I disagree
You should not be allowed to deny someone something because of however they were born.
IF the restrictions are something anyone can meet 'with effort' then whatever but.. if it is something that someone is born like and they cannot change then it is unfair to deny them..

the thing about 'gay' clubs is IF they will actually deny a straight person entry for the reason of being straight... or they are really advertizing they are gay friendly?

Just a Blanket rule to prevent discrimination

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:At the end of the day, this is about whether someone who owns or rents property should be able to set up a club with membership qualifications that meets there. Of course they should be able to; there's no compelling reason to take away that freedom.

OK, but there's no need for you to say that "bigots" can have their own clubs too.

Why not? I think someone who started a club with the purpose of excluding gay people would most likely do it out of bigotry, rather than to create a place where they're safer from "homosexual persecution" -- and the reverse would not be true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563647/Hanging-flat-caps-time-Britains-oldest-working-mens-club-forced-close-members-refuse-admit-women.html


http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/05/us/high-court-rules-that-rotary-clubs-must-admit-women.html




It appears that only heterosexual men only clubs are subject to the rules...



All in the name of equality mind!!!





We are all equal... but some are more equal than others...



Hypocrisy anyone...!!!???

Why is is it that The most vocal and strongest advocates of equality and promoting the idea that we are all the same are also the ones who try to justify special rights for others because they are different...!?

Equal rights is not equal at all, when some are allowed to be exempt from this 'equality', while being allowed to force others to conform to their wishes and at the same time not applying the same to them.

Tommy Monk wrote:Equal rights is not equal at all, when some are allowed to be exempt from this 'equality', while being allowed to force others to conform to their wishes and at the same time not applying the same to them.

You should not be allowed to deny someone something because of however they were born.
IF the restrictions are something anyone can meet 'with effort' then whatever but.. if it is something that someone is born like and they cannot change then it is unfair to deny them..

Blanket rule pretty easy I agree that it should apply across the board
Gays Blacks etc should Not feel the need to be separate, they should not fear others so there should be no need for separation.
If others want to discriminate still then society should stop them

But gays and blacks and women are allowed to set up THEIR OWN EXCLUSIVE clubs for them only and discriminate against others who are not THE SAME AS THEM... while forcing others to accept them BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME...!!!






You cannot argue that people are the same while also arguing that people are not.


That is insane!!!


Another example of how the lefties have developed a form of quantum thinking whereby they can hold two diametrically opposing ideas at the same time, believing both to be true while arguing against both too!!!






And you think people like me are crazy...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:But gays and blacks and women are allowed to set up THEIR OWN EXCLUSIVE clubs for them only and discriminate against others who are not THE SAME AS THEM... while forcing others to accept them BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME...!!!






You cannot argue that people are the same while also arguing that people are not.


That is insane!!!


Another example of how the lefties have developed a form of quantum thinking whereby they can hold two diametrically opposing ideas at the same time, believing both to be true while arguing against both too!!!






And you think people like me are crazy...!?

Actually it is RW people trying to profit making stupid division

You are the one saying they can setup their own clubs Literally it is the first thing you said

veya_victaous wrote:

Lefties seem to believe good and evil are equal, and should be treated the same...


The devil was just a naughty boy who made a few mistakes, was a victim of circumstance and discrimination etc, and who just needs to be understood and given special treatment and support to be able to integrate into the mainstream good society as we are all equal really and to not allow this to deny equality and equal rights and is just discrimination against others for being different when really we are all the same... Blah Blah Blah bullshit... good is the same as evil...


...in the corrupt mind of the lefties...!!!!


Then the lefties argue...


Because to not allow this evil means you are denying something, which means you are against equality... Blah Blah Blah bullshit...!!!







You lefties are truly twisted...!!!

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:But gays and blacks and women are allowed to set up THEIR OWN EXCLUSIVE clubs for them only and discriminate against others who are not THE SAME AS THEM... while forcing others to accept them BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME...!!!






You cannot argue that people are the same while also arguing that people are not.


That is insane!!!


Another example of how the lefties have developed a form of quantum thinking whereby they can hold two diametrically opposing ideas at the same time, believing both to be true while arguing against both too!!!






And you think people like me are crazy...!?

Actually it is RW people trying to profit making stupid division

You are the one saying they can setup their own clubs  Literally it is the first thing you said        

If you are going to argue against exclusive clubs and support legislation to force the admission of all... all in the name of equality... then you cannot also argue in favour of and support others to set up clubs that exclude others for similar reasons that you previously argued against!!!


Unless you are a leftie twat with complete hypocritical double standards...!?



Are we all equal or not...!?


Simple question... but to you lefties the answer is...


We are all equal but some are more equal than others...!!!






Bell end!!!

I already said I don't support gay clubs denying entry to people based purely on sexual orientation Mong-nut So where this Lefty thing? ohh in your delusional mind
And we are not equal .... I am obviously far superior to you

ALSO Lucifer is much better than Jehovah Like everything we value and call good is thanks to him giving humans free will which Jehovah denied us and punished us when we got it because Jehovah basically acts spoiled toddler when he doesn't get his way

Tommy Monk wrote:
The devil was just a naughty boy who made a few mistakes, was a victim of circumstance and discrimination etc, and who just needs to be understood and given special treatment and support to be able to integrate into the mainstream good society as we are all equal really and to not allow this to deny equality and equal rights and is just discrimination against others for being different when really we are all the same... Blah Blah Blah bullshit... good is the same as evil...

Was just thinking Aren't you lucky we don't Actually try and end Evil? I mean if society decide to End Evil once and for all then there goes the Right-Whingers

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK, but there's no need for you to say that "bigots" can have their own clubs too.

Why not? I think someone who started a club with the purpose of excluding gay people would most likely do it out of bigotry, rather than to create a place where they're safer from "homosexual persecution" -- and the reverse would not be true.

That's just your own intolerance talking.

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563647/Hanging-flat-caps-time-Britains-oldest-working-mens-club-forced-close-members-refuse-admit-women.html


http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/05/us/high-court-rules-that-rotary-clubs-must-admit-women.html




It appears that only heterosexual men only clubs are subject to the rules...



All in the name of equality mind!!!





We are all equal... but some are more equal than others...



Hypocrisy anyone...!!!???

To be fair, the working men's club closed because it couldn't get funding from the Lottery.

"But
in 2010, a surveyor inspected the Grade II-listed building in Madeley,
Shropshire, which has four bars, a snooker room, pool room and even a
ballroom.

He told members they needed to find £50,000 to repair the
crumbling brickwork and meet safety standards.

The club says it sought Lottery funding but was told it would not qualify
because its men-only membership rules breach equality criteria..."



There are many of examples of Nems clubs/organisations/establishments being forced to open door to others for reasons of equality where you cannot refuse others for reasons of gender/race/sexual orientation etc...


And plenty of other examples of where others are allowed to have exclusive clubs/organisations/establishments which are based entirely on gender/race/sexual organisation.