Lesbian couple win lawsuit againt B&B

[Akasa]

I'm putting it in fratching just in case it gets heated.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-fa...003846543.html

[Greenday]

I'm sure my right-wing extremist friends would consider this a travesty against religious rights. Because not being allowed to discriminate against people is somehow a horrible thing...

[Andara Bledin]

I like how the lawyer for the B&B tries to claim that "the ruling doesn't consider her First Amendment rights."

Seems to me the ruling not only allows her to continue to state she's a bigot and allows her to continue to be a bigot, so I'm not sure what rights have been trampled upon.

If she doesn't like the state telling her how to act, then she needs to either move somewhere that won't prevent her from being a professional bigot or find some other business.

[smileyeagle1021]

I'm almost at the point of wishing the government wouldn't force them to stop discriminating... yeah, it might make it more difficult for me to find somewhere to acquire goods and services I need, but ultimately, if someone wants to refuse service to me based on my orientation, then I'm entirely positive that I didn't want to give them my money in the first place.
That said, the whole "it violates my first amendment rights" is a load of crap. She still has every right to believe and say what she wants, but that doesn't change her obligations in running a business to be open for all customers.

[HYHYBT]

I have to admit to being a bit conflicted about this. Not about this situation, exactly, but about where the line ought to be drawn and how to weigh consistency against fairness. And in that, I'm not thinking so much of where the law stands as where it ought to whether it does or not. Discrimination law in general, regardless of characteristic.

It seems obvious to me that the owner or manager of an apartment building ought not be able to discriminate except on objective, relevant matters such as whether someone is likely to pay their rent on time and not cause too much damage, make noise, etc. You can make the argument that they should be free to choose who to do business with in any way they wish, but the problem with that of course is that if other landlords (and potential sellers) in the area make the same choice, or if there are no equivalents, the rejected person has no options.

It seems unreasonable, though, to extend that all the way down the scale to a roommate/housemate situation, even if they have their own room. It's too personal.

Looked at logically, the difference between a hotel and an apartment building is mostly how long people stay. Now, a bed and breakfast, as I understand it, is closer to the regular hotel side but has characteristics of the housemate situation as well. It definitely seems right to me that it would fall on the "take all comers" side of the law, but am having a bit of trouble finding the right point of logic to draw the line there.

In a similar way, the more an activity is legitimately an artistic statement about a specific event, the less inclined I am to believe it ought to be covered. To me, the line might run between, say, selling a dress or cake designed for weddings to anyone who wants one while being choosy about when you're willing to create something genuinely new, and no, putting names or figurines on it doesn't count.

[HYHYBT]

yeah, it might make it more difficult for me to find somewhere to acquire goods and services I need, but ultimately, if someone wants to refuse service to me based on my orientation, then I'm entirely positive that I didn't want to give them my money in the first place.

Up until the point where you run out of other options, at least. If either they're the only place around, or all the others are either booked up or have the same policy, then what?

[Greenday]

I like how the lawyer for the B&B tries to claim that "the ruling doesn't consider her First Amendment rights."

Seems to me the ruling not only allows her to continue to state she's a bigot and allows her to continue to be a bigot, so I'm not sure what rights have been trampled upon.

First Amendment is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and right to assemble. I'm guessing it's the religion part he's talking about.

[Nekojin]

I don't see how someone's sexuality is in any way the business of a hotelier, no matter how small or large the establishment is. The Bed & Breakfast owner is just as out-of-line for trying to force their own morality on guests as the Hilton CEO would be.

This is just tribalism once again - a person's tribalistic need to justify their own boundaries, and punish those who don't conform to his/her tribe. Too bad, fuck you. We're moving into an atribal future. Cope.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm guessing it's the religion part he's talking about.

Oh, that's definitely the part the lawyer is trying to misapply. But there's nothing stopping her from practicing her religion of bigotry. All the law does is require that she not use her beliefs to the detriment of others.

[Seifer]

If you open your house to the public, than you open your house to the public. Don't start a bed and breakfast if you're not willing to accommodate everyone looking for a room - especially not in a state that has strong anti-discrimination laws.

[Panacea]

Looked at logically, the difference between a hotel and an apartment building is mostly how long people stay. Now, a bed and breakfast, as I understand it, is closer to the regular hotel side but has characteristics of the housemate situation as well. It definitely seems right to me that it would fall on the "take all comers" side of the law, but am having a bit of trouble finding the right point of logic to draw the line there.

A B&B definitely falls on the hotel side of things, so those rules apply.

Technically, if I have a lease to an apartment and I decide to sublet, I'm still subject to the nondiscrimination laws. I can't reject a potential roomie based on race. So sexual identity should be similarly verboten.

Up until the point where you run out of other options, at least. If either they're the only place around, or all the others are either booked up or have the same policy, then what?

Exactly why these kinds of laws were tossed out for the basis of race and gender decades ago. It's about time gender identity and sexual identity caught up.

First Amendment is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and right to assemble. I'm guessing it's the religion part he's talking about.

Actually, I do think she was talking about freedom of speech.

But having to accept a gay or lesbian couple doesn't mean she has to be graceful about it. She still has the right to drive customers away by being an asshat. She also has the right to talk all she wants about the subject elsewhere.

And her religious practices are absolutely not infringed: nothing prevents her from practicing her religious beliefs. She just can't impose them on other people.

If you open your house to the public, than you open your house to the public. Don't start a bed and breakfast if you're not willing to accommodate everyone looking for a room - especially not in a state that has strong anti-discrimination laws.

Applause. Maybe she should move to Missouri.

[smileyeagle1021]

Up until the point where you run out of other options, at least. If either they're the only place around, or all the others are either booked up or have the same policy, then what?

Hence the use of the word "almost"
Sadly, I know all to well that there are large swaths of the country (the aptly named flyover regions) where the only way that you will get people treated fairly is if the government forces people to do the right thing. Doesn't mean that I can't wish they were rare enough that the government could let them be bigots so I could avoid giving them my money.

[SongsOfDragons]

We've had a case like this in the UK - I can't recall if it was one big case reported a lot or multiple cases, and IIRC it (if it is one case) was two gay men in a seaside B&B. We don't have the First Amendment as a thing here; the arguments went along the similar lines I think but probably focused more on the worn-down rights of the established religion (C of E). I think also the gay gentlemen won their case too.

One thing I do remember is that the B&B owners got a metric crapton of hate mail over it. I think they may have closed over it too, but I can't remember exactly.

[XCashier]

When Cervelli specified they would need one bed, the owner asked if they were lesbians.

Why is that any of her business in the first place?

Seriously, if you're going to run a hotel or similar establishment, you must know that sex is highly likely to happen, and it isn't always going to be a married heterosexual couple. If you can't accept that, get into another business.