[Junior]

It's the owner's property. He can rent to whomever he pleases.

[rintense]

Uh, there are quite a few gay-owned hotels/bed and breakfasts that won't accommodate straight couples. The latest case I heard was in Key West.

[timsbella]

Pickel and Black Bear - are those "code names"???

[Whit]

Heck I'd have turned them out just for the names.

[4everontheRight]

OK...I'll go first. Is Pickle the guy or girl?

[ASOC]

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.


So, the FPs will sue based on......hurt feelings? Freedom of association is still out there, last I heard.


Perhaps a more 'enlighted' place will put up with them.

[pabianice]

Pickel Black Bear? Somewhere an Indian is crying...

[Tamar1973]

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."

I'm sure they did. **roll eyes**

[Xenalyte]

“She said, 'Oh we don't rent to multiple people of the same sex.'

For the record, Jason, I should note that you say the desk clerk told you "no multiple people of the same sex."

She did not say "no multiple people of the same sex who we suspect are sleeping together."

So you couldn't rent a room with your brother or dad either. Get over your whiny self.

[eyedigress]

I guess they didn't want to have that bucket of aids spilled in one of their rooms.

[longtermmemmory]

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. [emphasis added]


There is the relevant part of the story and the intended spin bias.

The use of "currently" is made to imply that it is INEVITABLE there will be special protection for the sex fetish. (remember this policy discriminats against those with a sexual orientation towards farm animals)


AND

They BURRY the fact what the owner did was 100% LEGAL.

[RetSignman]

Ya' learn somethin' new every day, I didn't know Black Bears loved to 'eat' pickles.

[Tokra]

If these guys had any brains at all - one of them could have gone in and rented the room.

Unless, of course, they were trying to "make a point".

[lawdude]

Good for the hotel owner!

[CharlesWayneCT]

At the beach, for example, because there are different bike weekends at the beach, that policy has to be enforced, and consistent."

Anybody have any idea what this sentence was supposed to mean?

[hosepipe]

How did anybody know they were gay?..
Unless they made an issue of it.. or were acting out weirdly..

[CharlesWayneCT]

They weren't discriminated against because of marital status. The hotel operator said they wouldn't rent to to people of the same sex if there was only one bed. The hotel never asked what their orientation was, the couple volunteered the information.

It may be the hotel doesn't want to be overrun by illegal immigrant day laborers.

[dirtboy]

They should have gone for the double play and said they also only rent to married couples.

[Quick or Dead]

Pickel and Black Bear

With names like that, I wouldn't be surprised if the desk clerk had a reasonable suspicion that they were about to shoot gay porn in one of their hotel rooms.

[M203M4]

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.

There is an important difference between civil rights and the criminalization of personal morality.

Race, color, gender, and disability are off limits (as indicators themselves, not in any correlative or derived senses...). National origin too (but not citizenship). This is the domain of civil rights.

Discrimination based upon ANY action should be fair game. That would include creed, marital status, sexual activities (not sexual orientation, there is a difference), physical ability, mental ability, criminal background, wearing a blue hat, etc. This includes traits that are derivatives of things protected as civil rights (correlated manifestations).

There is a logical disconnect involved in the extension of "civil rights" protections to the point where individuals are shielded from the consequences of their ACTIONS, where any expression of non-PC morality and personal values is criminalized. Freedom from responsibility is not liberty. Freedom from all judgment is not liberty. By endorsing contrary notions, liberty is extinguished.

While the government should play no role in supporting or repressing actions that involve no involuntary loss of negative liberties of any external party (nor should it obviously involve itself in the provision of positive liberties, also known as privileges, services, materials), it should likewise not involve itself in the extinguishing of negative liberties of individuals who do not wish to extend, at their own expense, positive liberties to another party, based upon the action (or inaction) of said party. Positive liberties and government should never intersect; the primary domain of government is to protect individuals from the involuntary arrogation of negative liberties. That this has been "confused" with the provision of positive liberties, even when necessitating the involuntary denial of negative liberties, is the source for much societal decline.