Couple: Hotel Wouldn't Rent to Us Because We're Gay

(Sumter) - A gay couple looking to rent a hotel room say they were turned away because of their sexuality.

"She wasn't discreet about it," said Jason Pickel, referring to a hotel employee. "She was not apologetic. She just said, 'We do not rent to gay people.'"

For the past two and a half years, Pickel and Darren Black Bear have been in a committed relationship. During a search for a temporary home, the couple says it went to Affordable Suites of America, a long-term stay hotel located on Gion Street in Sumter.

"We were inquiring about the price, deposits, extra person fee, and she asked who the room was going to be for, and I said for my partner and I,” Pickel said. “She said, 'Oh we don't rent to multiple people of the same sex.' I said, so you don't rent to gay couples? She said, 'No, we don't rent to gay people at all.'"

The website for Affordable Suites of America states the company does not allow children or pets in its suites, but there is no mention of same sex couples.

News19 contacted the hotel, posing as a potential renter, and inquired about two men staying in the same room. The receptionist who answered the phone told us the following: “Our policy is we don’t rent to two people of the same sex if we only have one bed.” “Is that your policy,” we asked. “That’s corporate policy because they only have one sleeping area.” We then asked, “Okay, but they can't share the bed?” "I suppose they could, but most men don’t want to," she said.

However, when News19 called the owner of the hotel, Carroll Atkisson, he says there had been some confusion. He says any couple can come to the place and they will rent to them, period. Atkisson says the policy was not mean to target homosexuals. He says they were just trying to stop two single people from being in the same bed.

Pickel and Black Bear say they still plan to seek legal action. "Everyone is floored, shocked and outraged," said Pickel. "We have contacted some of our friends who are activists."

Currently, there is no state law preventing a hotel from refusing service to a same-sex couple. However, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, or marital status.

"If they have a policy, it has to be maintained fair and equitably," says Tom Sponseller, President of the Hospitality Association of South Carolina. "At the beach, for example, because there are different bike weekends at the beach, that policy has to be enforced, and consistent."

There is currently a bill in the State Senate that addresses this issue. The measure, proposed by Charleston Democrat Robert Ford, would expand the Lodging Establishment Act to include prohibition of discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

I understood I was speaking an orginalist form of the Constitution, which I think is, even in this manner, a form that even Clarence Thomas would agree with.

I was personally noting to myself how, in my lifetime, it seems to me, personally that the lives of people like Jackie Robinson (and the 15 black players joining the majors by 1959), Sidney Poitier, Sammy Davis Junior, and even Cassius Clay and many others like them did more for "integration" than all the "civil rights" laws on the books (outside of the voting rights act, (even with its great flaws)).

*Personally, the marriage bed between a man and women is made for pleasure whatever form that might take.*

I certainly agree however nowhere in your original post did you mention marriage. I ass-u-med nothing; I took the very obvious implication from your statement that because the Good Lord did not specifically design certain parts of the human anatomy for sexual intercourse then only naifs or dupes could indulge in certain sexual activities that involved anything other than genitalia (read your post again).

Now last time I checked the fingers, lips, tongue, back of the neck, ear lobes and women's breasts were not designed for sexual intercourse either but if you refrain from using these parts of the body then sex would be nothing more than joyless rutting.

However you now claim that was not your point but rather that the enjoyment of sex should be restricted to the marital bed (am I right, or am I as-u-me-ing again?)

And therein lies the rub, you see you may have misunderstood the purpose of this site, it's called Free Republic and it means just that. It is dedicated to upholding the principle and freedoms of the US constitutional republic. Among those feedoms is the right of consenting adults - married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual - to indulge in whatever sexual practices they desire in the privacy of their own homes, and of course the concomitant right of hoteliers to refuse to indulge such activities under their roofs.

Unfortunately recently there has been a tendency among some posters to believe that this site is about upholding "traditional" morality, or Christian values, it ain't. It's about political freedom and nothing else and I get a little frustrated when I read posts from busybodies and Godbotherers (I'm not necessarily labelling you as such but if the cap fits and all that) who believe it is their God given right to preach their morality and sit in judgement of other free born citizens.

Just my take on things.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.