While weâre referencing stories from earlier in the week, weâd like to direct you to a piece in yesterdayâs Times. Straightforwardly entitled, âGay tourist hotels fear equality lawâ, the article takes a look at British gay hoteliers who fear that the new UK anti-discrimination laws will adversely effect their businesses. Some of them insist their establishments will suffer from an influx of heterosexuals, thus deflating their gay following. One hotelier says:
We are a unique venue and we only admit gay and bisexual men. Under this law, we would go out of business. This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays.
You may recall our story on a lawsuit against roommates.com in which The Fair Housing Councilâs of the San Fernando Valley and San Diego allege the website breaks the law by posting âgay onlyâ adverts. In response to that story, we asked whether or not people should be allowed to shape according to sexual proclivities.
Now, we wonder, what you kids think about Britain forcing formerly gay only hotels to accept heteros. Again, from a civil rights perspective, itâs totally just â canât be having no separate but equal because, well, thatâs not equal. Still, one must weight complaints like that one lodged by Mark Hurtz, owner of Britainâs Guyz hotel:
When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didnât behave as they naturally would.
Here in the hotel now we have gays who cuddle up when theyâre watching a film but that never happened before. If this law is introduced it will deprive gays of a place where they can be themselves.
It seems to us that if heteros are really that uncomfortable with faggotry, theyâll most likely steer clear of places calls Guyz. But, of course, thereâs always the possibility that someone will register and then object, thus ruining some faggotâs fun. Is that the price we pay for an egalitarian society? Do you agree with Hurtz, or do you lean closer to a Stonewall spokespersonâs comment:
What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels.
There can be no shade of grayâŚ
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Threnody
I think this is much ado about nothing. I mean, we don’t screen people who come to gay bars, do we? The problem takes care of itself because only gay-positive people are going to show up. Besides, there is no gaydar so what’s to stop someone who wants to be disruptive from just lying?
But no self-respecting homophobe would check into a place like this. It’s time to wake up and realize a gay-friendly place doesn’t have to be 100% gay.
Mike
If someone is going to rent out a space in their own home, or a portion of their own home (i.e. a duplex), they should be able to discriminate on any grounds they want, whether in be based on sexuality, race, or bad hair. The Province of Manitoba has prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation (and all the other usual grounds) since 1987 but the law doesn’t cover the situation of renting out part of your own home. I believe this is the same throughout Canada in the other provinces.
As for hotels/inns that are open to the public, I agree with Threnody. Straight homophobes aren’t going to check into a place that advertises “24 hour hot tub” or “clothing optional” etc. Just gay up the place, gay up the ads, and you’ll avoid any problems with asshole guests.
Frozen North
Frankly, I’m willing to sacrifice Gay hotels for being able to stay in Any hotel with the full force of law behind me.
Wow, that wounds really homo-erotic.
Besides, as the previous poster said: it’s not like most, if very many at all, str8s will be lining up to goto a gay hotel.
Jamie
Wow. You used the words “faggot” and “faggotry.” When do you check into rehab?
As for the topic of the post itself, I would think advertising as “gay friendly” or “gay safe” is more beneficial than asking for the ability to discriminate against straights. If I owned a hotel it would be gay-friendly, but not clothing optional. After all, I’d want my parents to be able to come and visit, as well as my straight friends. Above all, I’d want to make a profit and know that my guests–gay or straight–were safe, comfortable, and satisfied.
There’s always room service for the kinky stuff. đ
Sometimes I think this “gay community” I’m always told I belong to needs to step back and see the forest for the trees.
WTF?
Would this include gender as well? Many establishments are for “Men Only” but I know a slew of chicks who would love to get a peek in on that (read: bathhouse action) but should they be allowed to? If women started showing up at all-nekkid man-sex venues, then clientele would drop off like flies – no matter how enlightened, encompassing and “pansexual” (whatever!) you consider yourself. Dicks would deflate like balloons. That said, I could see a similiar (if less sexualized) situation occuring with GLBT hotels, etc. Of course, like other posters commented, Rodney Redneck isn’t likely to visit a B&B called the Queens of Sheba.
John
Most of the time, illegal discrimination is ignored by the patrons themselves (who don’t want to visit an establishment that discriminates against them any way). So, it is very unusual that the governments of San Diego and Los Angeles has taken it upon themselves to defend the rights of those poor straight people.
In any case, I think the arguments will center on whether the web-site or the landlord themselves should assume responsibility for discriminating. I doubt the web-site will try to argue that the law itself is unconstitutional because the California Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco has always sided with the government in the past.
Certainly, California law does not exempt landlords who rent a portion of their own home from the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical and mental disabilities, medical condition, marital status, age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
But it is very strange to see local government actually enforcing FEHA provisions so vigorously.
Paul Raposo
It doesn’t matter how gay-friendly a straight person is, if the gay patrons don’t feel comfortable having them around. That may sound like reverse phobia, but straight people can stay anywhere, let the GLBT’s have their own safe and secure places.
Michael M.
This is really just a microcosm of the whole assimiliation dilemma, isn’t it? Blacks went through the same thing. You really only have two choices: you are either part of the culture, or you are separate from it. If you want to be part of it, then you can’t have things like hotels, restaurants and other public accomodations that cater “exclusively” to homosexuals (though I have to wonder, how do they check?) and “gay only” roommate advertisements. If you want those things, then you have to accept that heterosexuals will be able to discriminate against you as you do against them. You can be fired for being gay, you can be refused service because you’re gay, you can have a hard time finding a place to live because you’re gay. I kinda thought everybody knew this already, but it seems that some people somehow think we could have it both ways.
Andrew
Mark Hurtz’s complaint about an anti-discrimination law’s effect on his gay hotel is so ridiculous I (almost) want to stop wasting my time responding to it.
I bet the impact on his business will be minimal. More importantly, such a law is a step in the direction of a society where gay men can cuddle up anywhere, and not be afraid to do so. Sure, somewhat closeted men are probably still going to be uncomfortable snuggling with their boyfriend/partner/trick in a mixed environment, but if they are living a society which truly protects the rights of all individuals regardless of sexual orientation, that’s their issue to work out.
I’m sure there will still be a market and a place for gay hotels, sort of like how in the US we still have (and hopefully will always have) historically black colleges & universities.