agreed

 

This has been said many times, and for reasonable people, is reason enough. It's not a matter of plain acceptance.

 

They were not asked to but rather are being ordered to compromise their beliefs.

I guess the question is, is the business at their home or their home at their business? I think that the business is at their home and the home should take precidence over the business.

That is why I think it is another case of militant oh poor me gay discrimination law suit shopping. What exactaly was it that was lost or damaged for these gay guys? It's clearly another case of rub your nose in it "we're here we're queer, so get used to it. That is what happens when 3% hold power over 97% it's just wrong all the way around!

 

It works that way in the US Senate when Mitch McConnell bitches about something!!!

 

I disagree that the business is at their home so it takes precedent. First they can't just decide to become a B&B...they need to get zoning changes to allow this more than likely, it has to go through safety inspections, etc. This is a business first and foremost.

What if it was a cafe they ran out of their home and they didn't want a gay couple there? Does that change anything? Ewwww...they might hold hands!

What if you're part of that 3% instead of that 97%. There is a case going on in Pakistan where a Christian woman was sentenced to death for blasphemy because an Islamic woman made a claim against her. The women got into a verbal confrontation because the Christian woman drank water from some pail and the Islamic women wouldn't drink after her since she was a dirty Christian.

Since the 97% probably are opposed to the 3% there, should she be stoned to death? Admittedly an extreme case but the point is that our government is set up to be representative of all interests...not just the majority. This is why things like Prop 8 in California are so disturbing. The majority group being able to reign down on the little guy isn't supposed to happen in our country. Equal opportunity and all that good stuff.

Are these guys pushing too hard against an old couple...probably. Would you feel better if they were doing this against a big chain hotel that decided to invoke a similar rule?

Better yet...what if it was a heterosexual unmarried couple? Should these people be able to demand a marriage certificate to allow you to stay? I believe in the bible they mention that all sin is equal. What matters if Neal and Bob go at it or Neal and Barbara the unmarried couple? Sin is sin!

 

A B & B is only a portion of the house, not the entire property. I think that you would have portions of the house/property off limits to any guests. So the zoning you refer to is in regard to the renting of a room. 1 to maybe 4 rooms of the house are devoted to the business. So I think it qualifies as a home.


It is a B & B not a cafe, completely different set of rules and much different zoning requirements-Parking, handicap, public restrooms, etc. Moot point.

Other than the percentage points this has nothing to do with this topic, no one has been stoned.

How I "feel" has nothing to do with this situation. And we are not talking about a big chain. This is about an elderly couple using their HOME to make a few extra bucks, I'm sure the big chain has a team of liers (oops I mean lawyers) to protect them from stuff like this. So that is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

Yup you are correct. Like my Dad used to ask me when I was a little twirp, If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you jump too? Neither one makes it right.

That seems to be the liberal way to look at things, if something/someone is screwed up then oh well let's just screw everything else up to so it can be equal. How about correcting what is wrong instead? Look at the spirit of the law as well as the law it self, I don't think anyone who put this law into place did it to mess with an old couple's retirement. So what are the gay guys out----nothing, what do the old couple have to loose---everything. If the purpose of the law is to jack somebody up then by all means burn them at the stake. IDK it still looks like harrasment on the part of the gay guys for pushing it like this, maybe that is why they are met with so much resistance instead of acceptance.

 

I think the learned behavioral trait is to not tell anyone that you're gay for fear of how you'll be smeared by the closed-minded holier than thou idiots who think that you just decided to be gay even at the high cost that comes with it, and just so happens that the homophobes and haters are straight, so they're in the majority and fell as if they're 100% right because of it. That's closer to the truth.

 

The gays aren't allowed in the part of their house that isn't for rent, so totally moot point a out it being their home.
You make money from it, it's a business, subject to the law. If someone is creating a disturbance, you can throw them out, but just being gay isn't causing a disturbance. This is not like gay day at Disney, they should get no special treatment like that, but they should get equal treatment, and that is what this is about.

 

Today we have a much more open society. We see a lot more that happens because the SHAME that used to be stigmatized against people for being different has changed. That's why you perceive a rise in the gay population, not that there is an actual rise in the number.

Look at some people that were later found out to be gay...Rock Hudson...do you think he would have been accepted as a leading male if he were seen walking arm in arm with his boyfriend back then?

We see things that repulse us going on in Arab countries and say "these people need to get with the times" and blah blah blah. What do you think happened to gays or adulterers or whatever different group during the days of the Puritans? They were pretty cool about it, huh??

Do you think teens weren't having sex and getting pregnant in the 1950's? Of course it happened but instead of them going about their lives as usual, the girl was either married in a shotgun wedding or shipped off to aunt Sally's. Aunt Sally suddenly had a bouncing baby boy of her own even though it never looked like she was pregnant...hmmmm??

Most gays were in the closet and either repressed their feelings or did it underground. You couldn't dare come out as your reputation and life would be over as you knew it.

Do we want to live in a repressive society like that or are we better off for the openness?

You also had few interracial marriages because well think of the torment that kid would go through.

I don't say that any group, gay, straight, whatever should be pushing their views down others throats.

 

X2

 

So if they are not in their "home" portion, what is the problem? The part for rent is a business and subject to the rules of a business.




True there are different rules but the same principle applies. If I own a restaurant that is an extension off of my home, can I turn gays away because their being together makes me uncomfortable? It's not uncommon to have people own an older building in a downtown area that has a shop below and an apartment above it.

I agree but still the idea that 3% of a population has to cower in fear of their lives because of the will of 97% is still applicable.

Still law is about precedents. What applied in case A is used in case B to defend such decision. If two old people can say, "we don't want gays" what is to stop Holiday Inn from saying the same?

I am sure I can find an old couple with a B&B that don't want to rent to unmarried couples. Sin is sin again. What if that were the situation instead of two gay guys? What if the owner demanded a marriage certificate upon check in to ensure these people weren't fornicating under their roof? Would that change your perspective?

I am not wanting to crush these people either. There is a lot of this story that I am certain that we don't know. Maybe these guys are the slimy guys trying to make a buck on these old people. Maybe the old people are some real angry zealots that are the cousins of old Rev. Phelps too! Who knows?

Maybe these guys were trying to book a room and the whole area was booked and they found something and then got a bomb dropped on them like that?

We cannot tailor laws to meet every possible scenario. We have to have broad legislation and work from there or our law books and system would be even more unmanageable.

 

This is so true, but on the other hand our laws are not to be taken as a one size fits all. This is where reasonable judgement comes into play, without out that "reasonable" part then our society becomes stagnant.

Reasonable application in this case (IMHO) would be nothing more than a repramand of the old couple and tell the gay guys to go pound sand. But if they (either party) does not take steps to avoid a repeat then it's lower the boom time.

There people who make a living off of un-suspecting people with frivilous lawsuits and this has all the markings of that type of case. The same thing happens with the ADA Mafia (Americans with Disabilities Act), they will go into a small business and measure the bathrooms and mirror/tiolet paper holder/ door **** height and actually sue over a quater inch out of spec. They threaten the owners and extort money to not sue, and the poor business owner takes it in the shorts. These gay guys are out nothing but seem to only want to inflict revenge, and that is the wrong use of this law.

 

Hey K-Mac, go back and re read the article now that every one has sounded off and tell me if you think it looks like a hunting for a case on the part of the gay guys.

 

I agree with 100% of what you are saying in principle.

I am assuming these people didn't know better but next month if they reopen their B&B because the issue goes away and do the same thing again then of course they are breaking the rules and they need to be dealt with.

I understand both sides here. The old couple are saying "I don't approve of that and I don't want it in my house!" The gay guys are saying, "You have a business that is open to the public and you're excluding us!"

The reality is that the old couple unfortunately are kind of on thin ice. What they did was wrong legally. Morally, we can all go around and around on that. I say we can agree to disagree there.

Of course there are people that would rather scam a buck than earn one even if they have to work 20x harder to scam it than if they earned it the old fashioned way. At the same rate, there are people that are genuinely injured by others that don't see a nickel too.

I agree that laws like ADA that are meant to help people are taken to an extreme at times. I have also seen places that make no effort to make their place accessible too. It cuts both ways.

 

I can agree with that too, if it was a perfect world there would be no chevys