Saturday, May 11, 2013

Lucia Forcing people to accept sexual practices they don't agree with

It used to be that the sexual revolution's catch cry was to get Government out of the bedroom. Now, it seems, it's to get Government to force people to accept sexual practices they don't agree with under their roof. The approval of same-sex marriage has opened the door and now a NZ B&B couple could be in trouble for turning away lesbians who wanted to sleep together from staying at their house over-night.
A lesbian couple have been turned away from a Whangarei guesthouse that refused to let them share a bed.

Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, made an online booking for a room with a king-sized bed at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge.

But when they arrived on Tuesday, they were told only rooms with single beds were available.

When they queried the booking, the owner eventually told them the booking was correct, but she was offended by same-sex couples sleeping in the same bed. She would not even let them push two singles together.

They eventually found accommodation 50 kilometres away.

Ms Collison has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. It is illegal under the Human Rights Act to discriminate against someone in the provision of goods and services because of their sexual orientation.
Yet another complaint of this nature since marriage was reundefined last month, and I don't think it will be the last.


Related link: Guesthouse refuses to let gay couple sleep together ~ Stuff

Essential Reading : The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists ~ Huffington Post

29 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

Now, it seems, it's to get Government to force people to accept sexual practices they don't agree with under their roof.

Not true. Neither you nor I will be faced with this.

The approval of same-sex marriage has opened the door and now a NZ B&B couple could be in trouble for turning away lesbians...

Not true. Discrimination in the supply of goods and services has been illegal for quite some time now.

When they queried the booking, the owner eventually told them the booking was correct, but she was offended by same-sex couples sleeping in the same bed.

In other words, the owner was/is grandstanding over the whole affair. She was obviously aware prior to the couples' arrival that she was not going to let them "share a bed", and yet she chose not to tell them that at the time the booking was made. Why not? Or, she could have informed them that she was fully booked for the night(s) in question and thus avoided the whole scene. Why didn't she? I believe it was because she could not wait to show those uppity lesbians a thing or two, and along the way, make a martyr out of herself.

Yet another complaint of this nature since marriage was reundefined last month, and I don't think it will be the last.

Again, untrue. There have been numerous cases like this, and in fact, many of them even predate civil unions which, IIRC, had you all clutching your pearls and yelling "The sky is falling" and "the sun won't rise tomorrow".

Here's an interesting bit thast you missed from the Stuff article

In the past, same-sex couples have been allowed to stay at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge, but only if they slept in separate single beds.

Are christians really, really that naive that they think that the only place anyone ever has sex is in a double bed? Have they never tried it in a single bed? On the floor? On the kitchen table?

No, this is all the proof I need to know that this woman is pissed off that "she lost, we won" that she has joined the lemming like rush to martyrdom. Or she is a huge hypocrite.

And as to your headline - why the hell should it be your business, or anyone's business, what sexual practices are undertaken by consenting adults? Yes, we had to fight to get the government out of the bedroom; we are still fighting to keep the bluenoses out.

ZenTiger said...

Here's a similar story: Gay Bar wins right to ban heterosexuals

If the motel in question was a clasic B&B/home arrangement, I would come down in favour of the owners. It looks to me though, from the website, that it is a full fledged up market motel, and I'm inclined to think they were in the wrong.

I don't think their action was treating those people with proper dignity.

Although unlike LRO, the fact that they were prepared to let them stay providing they used single beds I take as a positive act of compromise, and the fact this has been their approach previously at least makes it a consistent, and not an act of grand-standing, like LRO believes.

Still, I'm finding it tough to side with them, even though I fully appreciate their position. This sort of conviction is similar to the Catholic adoption agencies, where those adoption facilities are forced to close down simply because they believe every child needs both a mother and a father. It saddens me that this battle creates such casualties.

I think the essence of your post is correct - the position has indeed moved from a requirement to tolerate sexual practices one might not agree with, to having to go way beyond toleration, and accept them.

I wonder if the age of consent was dropped from 16 to 11 years old, should a motel owner be allowed to turn away a "couple" that featured an 11 year old and a 50 year old? That might be the situation we find ourselves debating in the next 10 years. Again, it would seem society will not allow people to hold to their own moral standards.

Marian said...

"I think the essence of your post is correct - the position has indeed moved from a requirement to tolerate sexual practices one might not agree with, to having to go way beyond toleration, and accept them.

I wonder if the age of consent was dropped from 16 to 11 years old, should a motel owner be allowed to turn away a "couple" that featured an 11 year old and a 50 year old? That might be the situation we find ourselves debating in the next 10 years. Again, it would seem society will not allow people to hold to their own moral standards"

Yes. I suppose if you ran a family friendly B&B. You would have to 'tolerate' Naturist couples walking Naked around the place, even if young children were present. And 'tolerate' BDSM couples half naked and dog collars and chains around their necks.

I think you'll find a number of B& BS may start closing down, because their is such a thing as DECORUM. Unfortuanely when it comes to flaunting it, We know alternative lifestylers from the Gay community, Naturists, BDSMers, etc are selfish. They have no DECORUM!!

ds said...

Interestingly, as I understand it if you knowingly allow people to manufacture P in a house you own the law considers you an accomplice in the sale of P. This suggests that under the principles of complicity recognized in law to provide a Lesbian couple with a double bed in a bed and breakfast is to be complict in the act. So I tend to agree with Lucia here this law is saying that people must support same sex sex.

Note also if this were adultery no one would think otherwise. If a person who X knew was married came and asked to spend the night with a women he was having an affair with and the BB owner said, No I want no part in helping you cheat. People would probably not see it as "intolerant" at all.

ZenTiger said...

This perspective of complicity is important.

The owners offered single beds...they were not discriminating against the couple, but against the act, and they were trying not to be complicit in supporting it.

A Catholic group I am involved with looked for a motel to host a retreat over a week-end. It involved needing a place to have a mass. Some motels did not want us on that basis. We were allowed to stay as Catholics, providing we didn't get all religious on them. Perhaps they were concerned we would freak out other guests?

So we had to hunt for a while, and we found a place that worked for all parties, and the other places that turned us down were not taken to the HRC.

Is that really so different?

Isumbras said...

Why is tolerance a one way street in this wonderful new world of relationship diversity.?
Why couldn't the old Lesbian and the young Lesbian tolerate the views of the B&B owners or at least be sensitive to their concerns and accept the single beds?
Do the old lesbian and the young lesbian really think that because some politicians in Wellington make some rules on a moral issue that the mindset of all New Zealanders follows right behind in lockstep.
Come on Lesbians young and old, show some tolerance!

leftrightout said...

A Catholic group I am involved with looked for a motel to host a retreat over a week-end. It involved needing a place to have a mass. Some motels did not want us on that basis. We were allowed to stay as Catholics, providing we didn't get all religious on them. Perhaps they were concerned we would freak out other guests?

If you cannot see why this is different, then you need to have motes removed from your eyes.

The motels are in the business of providing accommodation, and by your own admission, not one of them turned you away, all were happy top provide accommodation.

Motels are not in the business of providing facilities for religious purposes. Most Motels I have stayed at would not have had a space suitable for mass.

But it mattes not what is truth, does it, when a xtian wants to come over all persecuted.

leftrightout said...

Isumbras, did it make you feel good to vent your bigotry like that?

Take a peek at http://leftrightout.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/shamelessly-stolen-cudos-to-creator/

scrubone said...

If you cannot see why this is different, then you need to have motes removed from your eyes.

The motels are in the business of providing accommodation, and by your own admission, not one of them turned you away, all were happy top provide accommodation.


Ironic comment.

In this case, the motel was also prepared to provide accommodation. They were quite happy to provide beds for these women to sleep in.

Isumbras said...

Ah the old 'you're against same sex marriage therefore you must be a racisss' chestnut.... Oh the shame...
You lefties just love to play that raciss card.....
Afraid it is so overused it is totally ineffective to a sentient being....

bamac said...

Leftrightout,

You throw the word bigotry around ... dictionary definition of bigotry reads:- stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. dosn't that apply to your comments in regard to catholic beliefs as expressed here and elsewhere?

leftrightout said...

Scrubone, the difference is that the bigoted xtian Ruskin accepted the booking, knowing full well that she would not provide the services she had contracted to supply. She accepted the booking in order to display her bigotry and to make her feel better by belittling others.

leftrightout said...

You throw the word bigotry around ... dictionary definition of bigotry reads:- stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. dosn't that apply to your comments in regard to catholic beliefs as expressed here and elsewhere?

No, it doesn't. I am open to evidence, I can accept when I am wrong and change accordingly. If you, or any catholic, can prove god exists, then I am happy to change my point of view. catholics, on the other hand, inspite of all the evidence, continue to believe in myths.

As I have posted, here and elsewhere, I was once opposed to marriage equality. But when my opposition was challenged and I rethought my opposition, I found it was based on bias, remnants of religious indoctrination and was anti-humanitarian and irrational. I therefore changed my POV and became a supporter.

See, I was once a "believer" too, but saw the light and concluded from the absolute lack of evidence that there are, and never were, any gods. Deluded no more, I became a better man, a better father and a better Humanitarian. Try it, you just might find it as liberating as I did.

Isumbras said...

Concentrate LRO... It was you who bought up the 'B' word when posting a link to a lame cartoon that equates not cantering through the streets celebrating gay marriage with racism....

leftrightout said...

Ah the old 'you're against same sex marriage therefore you must be a racisss' chestnut....

No, that is not what I said, nor is it the point of the cartoon.

But a sentient being, who has not been blinded by religious indoctrination, would see that discrimination is discrimination is discrimination...

It is true, however, that almost every argument used against marriage equality has a doppleganger in the arguments used against racial inequality. Why is that, do you think?

Isumbras said...

Because if you want to see a dopplegänger, (or straw man) well I guess you'll find one. The Left can often spot them where the rest of us can't.....

Must be nice up there on the lofty heights where the unicorns gambol through the wildflowers and only enlightened beings aren't blinded by religion and can see so clearly....

bamac said...

LRO<

You state that you do not believe in God ... therefor I take it , you believe in the big bang theory , that at one stage there was absolutely nothing then this nothing caused a bang out of which came this beautifully orchestrated self caused beautifully ordered evolution of nature ,animal,human,scenic ..... all out of nothing.

You say that if we could convince you that there is a God then you would believe .... can you convince me absolutely that there is NO God?

You may not believe in God but He believes in you! Despite the way you may feel now you are often in my prayers that one day God will trip you up and you will come to believe in His love for you ... your life would then be much richer .... that is this old lady's belief and hope anyway,
Shalom ,
Mrs Mac

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

So much assumption in this comment of yours:

"... the bigoted xtian Ruskin accepted the booking, knowing full well that she would not provide the services she had contracted to supply. She accepted the booking in order to display her bigotry and to make her feel better by belittling others."

Are you a mind reader? Or maybe you've read an account of how the lady involved shared her thinking processes in all of this whereby she admitted she "accepted the booking in order to display her bigotry and to make her feel better by belittling others." Or is it just an assumption on your part, which what I am assuming?

Can you maybe imagine a scenario where a booking was accepted and there was no clue given that it was two women who wanted to sleep together in the same bed that wanted to stay there, and that when confronted with the reality of the situation the lady thought maybe she could let them have a room with separate beds, which turned out to be not acceptable and made the women uncomfortable, so they flat out asked her if she wanted them to stay there, and she just told the truth to them?

Why is that so hard to accept, that some people find the thought of implicitly encouraging same-sex sex to be more than they can bear? It certainly does make it difficult for a motelier to do business in today's New Zealand, given that many seem to have very few morals and see nothing wrong with lesbians sharing a bed, and even wish they could watch. I'm not going to assume anything about you in that regard, LRO, though it would fit right in with all the assumptions flying around here today in your comments.

ZenTiger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZenTiger said...

LRO said: "Motels are not in the business of providing facilities for religious purposes. Most Motels I have stayed at would not have had a space suitable for mass." /endquote

The ones we pre-selected did have spaces, such as conference rooms.

LRO said:"But it mattes not what is truth, does it, when a xtian wants to come over all persecuted."
/endquote

Once again, you miss the mark and make baseless accusations. I did not feel persecuted. Never said I did. I did not lay a complaint with the HRC, for example. I simply moved on. The only reason I mention it now is because there is a similarity to the case, even if you cannot see it.

And to be clear: I did not say the example was *exactly* the same, just similar.

Another example: If a prostitute was turned away for renting a room with her mark.

The point being in all three examples, people were turned away not for what they were, but how they wished to use the rooms.

At the outset of this discussion I made my comment that I mostly side on the side of the couple. However, unlike you, I have attempted to see things from the owner's perspective, and can see their point of view, and I can see how they, as owners, should get some say in how the rooms they rent are used. You seek to interpret the worst of them, and are not at all objective. For example, one person could have booked, and not mentioned the other person was not married to them, and also female.

Also, (apparently unlike you) I started off as an agnostic and relatively recently looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion, and become a believer in God. So, I've taken your advice of examining things from a fresh start, and just happened to come to a different conclusion.

I am not condemning you for your conclusions, but you seem to be very aggressive and strident attacking others here simply because they have reached different conclusions.

Most of our commenters are intelligent and capable of putting forward reasoned arguments - and they happen to believe in God.

One of the conclusions I'm coming to is that you seek to impose your morality on Christians, by taking away private property rights and freedom of conscience. The whole journey started off as freedom to do what people wanted in their own bedrooms. Now it's moved to freedom to do what ever people want in other people's bedrooms. Those people were not denied a right to stay, just the conditions under which they could stay.

I'd be interested to see if you feel it to be a violation of human rights to demand a prostitute can take a client to room in a small motel against the wishes of the motel owner too.

bamac said...

Zen,

Maybe my comments aren't among the most intellegent on site and apologize if I went off topic, just that I find the bitterness that I read in LRO'S comments very sad .

Mrs Mac

Matthew said...

Having read through all the comments, I think one interesting question has not been responded to by LRO. Maybe he has not had the time to, which is fair enough, but in the possibility that it get's lost in comment thread here, I'm posting the content again because I think it is a key question too.

"If you cannot see why this is different, then you need to have motes removed from your eyes.

The motels are in the business of providing accommodation, and by your own admission, not one of them turned you away, all were happy top provide accommodation."

Ironic comment.

In this case, the motel was also prepared to provide accommodation. They were quite happy to provide beds for these women to sleep in.


Maybe the arrangement of the beds was not to their liking, but then I recall in Milan 8 years ago the hotel only provided me with a single bed. Does that give me the right to complain to the hotel if I wanted to cheat on my wife and have another women in the single bed for the night or are they in the business of providing accommodation?

Mrs Mac, well said :).

ZenTiger said...

Mrs Mac, nothing silly about your comments whatsoever. Wish we had a few more commenters like yourself, whose wisdom is shown in their underlying wish for the best for people.

scrubone said...

Scrubone, the difference is that the bigoted xtian Ruskin accepted the booking, knowing full well that she would not provide the services she had contracted to supply. She accepted the booking in order to display her bigotry and to make her feel better by belittling others.

Again with the irony.

You make a magnificent grandstand of presumed motive and belittle this woman as a grandstander who feels better by belittling others.

I see then you claim you are not a bigot yourself because you can be swayed by evidence. But you just made the above nasty attack based on... zero evidence.

the conservative said...

Lucia, great post. And they said gay marriage wasn't going to affect us, and here we already have three cases since the law passed. The first being Family First's deregistration, the second being the Anglican church, and now this one. This is only the beginning.

bamac said...

Maybe they said that gay marriage wasn't going to affect us but did anyone really believe them?

scrubone said...

Let's be clear here: these cases are not about "gay" marriage.

But with that out of the way, it's clear that the next thing on the agenda is forcing people to accept the changes implemented in law over the last few years, and forcing out (in the case of the church) the remaining exemptions.

bamac said...

And all of these changes and attacks on the true meaning of family life were in the minds and intentions and/or aims of the gay activists at the time of the first anti-discrimination bill.

Mrs Mac

Lady Gaga said...

leftrightout: When the complaintant booked that room she DID NOT inform the owners it was for a same sex couple. Also, you may not be aware but Paula Knight is the only one who has publicly stated she is a Christian, not the owners. People who believe men/men women/women relationships are not right are not automatically religious nutters. Sorry.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.