# Red Roof Inn=Homophobic Blabbermouths **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 2, 2006, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060 "2006-01-02T07:36:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/61 "2006-01-10T04:23:47Z")
People may well use the word “right” in different ways. I favor a more rigorous approach to discussion, myself. I would never have described my experience as violative of my rights… it was mererly crass, rude, and unwelcome. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/62 "2006-01-10T14:31:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > People may well use the word “right” in different ways. > > I favor a more rigorous approach to discussion, myself. I would never have described my experience as violative of my rights… it was mererly crass, rude, and unwelcome. I’m curious about something here, and this might be a good place to bring it up. Back when we were “doing” the Ninth Amendment in Great Debates, **Dewey Cheatem Undhow** raised the very interesting hypothesis that the Ninth Amendment exists to permit Congress and the states to guarantee rights not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, by state constitution or by statute law. For example, a black person has a guaranteed right to be hired, fired, and paid equally with a white person in any employment position where Federal funds are involved, whether by grant, loan, purchase contract, or whatever, under one of the Equal Employment Opportunity acts. This is not a constitutional guarantee (albeit you could make a case for it under a very liberal reading of the Fourteenth) but one embodied in statute law. Among the many areas covered in statute law is treatment at a place of lodging which holds itself open to persons travelling interstate. And I’m aware that the Federal law does not presently consider sexual orientation as a protected class. But I’d wonder if the particular treatment mentioned here does in some way fall under that statute. At rock bottom, it was not because they were a same-sex couple in fact, but because they were two women sharing a room who were _believed to be_ a same-sex couple by the staff. Care to look at it from that perspective? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/63 "2006-01-10T14:51:06Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Among the many areas covered in statute law is treatment at a place of lodging which holds itself open to persons travelling interstate. And I’m aware that the Federal law does not presently consider sexual orientation as a protected class. But I’d wonder if the particular treatment mentioned here does in some way fall under that statute. At rock bottom, it was not because they were a same-sex couple in fact, but because they were two women sharing a room who were _believed to be_ a same-sex couple by the staff. Care to look at it from that perspective? Both the Ninth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause give Congress the power to pass such legislation. So the only relevant question would be: HAS Congress, in fact, passed legislation that either forbids what happened to the OP, or gives rise to a cause of action for the conduct in question? Answer: I don’t know, but I don’t think so. As you observe, Federal law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class. In order to prevail, then, the OP would (I think) have to show that she suffered the conduct because of some federally-protected aspect. In other words, presumably the hotel owner is free to make his guests uncomfortable because they are Steelers fans, because they listen to Wagner instead of Puccini, or because they are gay. He would NOT be free to make them uncomfortable because they were Hispanic, because they were Greek Orthodox, or because they were union organizers. I welcome correction on this analysis from someone more familiar with this area of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/64 "2006-01-10T18:05:31Z")
Who was even talking about law in the first place? All this legal literalism misses the point and amounts to an elaborate nitpick, one which would make a fine GD thread on its own, but is irrelevant to what I said to **Suze**. I said to her to keep fighting for her rights to offer moral support to her for what she’s going through. I was thinking in the sense used by the Wailers in the song “Get Up, Stand Up.” The chorus urges black people to fight for their rights. But the verses criticize religious doctrines. “Preacher man, don’t tell me that Heaven is under the earth. I know you don’t know what life is really worth. But if you know what life is worth, you will look for yours on earth. So now you’ve seen the light, better stand up for your rights.” I suggest **kanicbird** start a CS thread to criticize the Wailers for using the word “rights” illegitimately. After all, Jamaica has freedom of religion in the law, right? So what “rights” are the Wailers protesting about? Which would completely ignore the struggles of black peoples for liberation over the past 400 years, and the huge complex of cultural themes enforcing inferior status for black people, themes that were not only encoded in law, but were used to indoctrinate the oppressed peoples to accept their inferior status and not struggle for their rights. Christianity was historically used during slavery in this way. So even though I’m not black, I understand that a lot went into the background of how slaves from Africa were oppressed by the system and deprived of their rights; part of it was mental indoctrination, chains on the mind as well as chains on the leg. A narrowly legalistic, literal interpretation of “Get Up, Stand Up” could be impeccably researched and footnoted by **Bricker** with case law, Supreme Court decisions, and everything to prove that the Christianity taught to black Jamaicans has nothing whatever to do with the law. For all its correctness, however, it would miss the whole point of the song. It’s a black thing. I know **Bricker** understands this and he was just responding when his name was invoked. > [@Bricker](#): > > People may well use the word “right” in different ways. Yes. What’s so hard to understand about that, **kanicbird**? > [@](#): > > I favor a more rigorous approach to discussion, myself. No doubt you have sound reasons within your life for this preference, and as long as we make our definitions and word choices clear, we shouldn’t have too much misunderstanding. Meanwhile of course you’re intelligent enough to understand that the semantic range of the word extends beyond the limits you choose to impose on it. I never intended to drag the law into this to begin with, which is probably how the misunderstanding arose. Also, I was addressing my moral support to **KCSuze** , not to anyone else. According to the _American Heritage Dictionary_, one of the many definitions of “right _n._” is > [@American Heritage Dictionary](#): > > Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. Note that law is only one of several possible foundations for rights. I was appealing to the moral sense of what’s right by nature, a principle I believe most reasonable people would agree to, that travelers have the “right” in a moral sense—_I never said or implied a legal sense_—to have their privacy and basic human dignity respected. I never intended to invoke the law in this situation. This whole huge hijack arose because **kanicbird** insisted on misinterpreting my words, attributing a narrow meaning while ignoring the broader meaning which is right there in the dictionary. I suggest you learn the English language first before attempting to post in English, **kanicbird** you pathetic pea-brained moron. The _AHD_ Usage Note under the entry “right” is helpful to sort out the various meanings of the word. > [@American Heritage Dictionary](#): > > Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: “I’m a champion for the Rights of Woman” (Maria Edgeworth) Even though “legally” is the first basis for rights listed, it isn’t the only one. **KCSuze** ’s right to have her human dignity respected seems to me a good example of a **"morally just claim."** **mojave66** explained it really well, and I can do no better than quote her: > [@mojave66](#): > > “Rights” may be too strong a word for you, but in the context of being homosexual in a heterosexist world, it has a specific meaning for queer folks-- the right to privacy, which they obviously didn’t have since their whole trip seemed to be scrutinized by the staff there. Sure, most average folks wouldn’t think of not being singled out for humiliation isn’t a “right” per se, but for anyone who’s been targeted that way, relief from the asshats and idiots of the world sure feels like a “right” that has been infringed. Sure, there are heterosexual couples that get this, like Bricker and his wife, but I’m sure I can safely say that homosexual couples certainly get this unwanted humiliation quite a bit more. I was showing care, empathy, and moral support for my sister, not talking about law. It’s a girl thing, you wouldn’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/65 "2006-01-10T18:40:11Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > I know **Bricker** understands this and he was just responding when his name was invoked. Of course. In ordinary discussion, we don’t leap down someone’s rhetorical throat for saying, “I have the right to watch the playoffs this weekend in peace, don’t I?” We understand that the “right” is not legally or morally grounded, but merely a strong expression of priorities. But I would point out that in a discussion like this, the legal side of things is not completely irrelevant. A woman paid money to rent a hotel room. Her enjoyment of the use of that hotel room was marred, and the reason for that was the pernicious commentary by the staff on her private sex life. If a black couple had racial slurs directed at them, we might well ask if this was a pervasive practice by the hotel, and if it was sufficient to amount to a denial of their legal rights as regards lodging. That comparison raises what I think is a very legitimate pair of subjects for discussion: (a) is there a legal remedy, and (b) SHOULD THERE be a legal remedy? I don’t think there are too many people here that would question the violation of a moral right out of these circumstances. But the moral issues raised by racial discrimination didn’t get solved in this area until they were given a boost by codification into federal law. We would do well to ask ourselves if that’s what’s needed here, now, with respect to gay rights. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/66 "2006-01-11T00:58:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (a) is there a legal remedy, and (b) SHOULD THERE be a legal remedy? […] But the moral issues raised by racial discrimination didn’t get solved in this area until they were given a boost by codification into federal law. We would do well to ask ourselves if that’s what’s needed here, now, with respect to gay rights. I’m glad you said this. I agree with you completely. You put it very well. I do pay lots of attention to my own currently shaky legal status and how the struggle against discrimination is proceeding in the legal arena. I am totally with the program on that. I was just disentangling the legal topic from my simple message of support and empathy to **KCSuze** , offered in the spirit of a hug. Because we’ve shared the experience of being harrassed for belonging to a sexual minority. After seeing how badly my girlfriend was shook up by the ugly homophobic incident, after seeing the look in her eyes, how could I ever look her in the eye again unless I was an activist for queer liberation? And thanks, **Bricker** , for contributing your formidable legal mind to this cause. ---
**Author:** ![Grelby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@Grelby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grelby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/67 "2006-01-11T01:20:03Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I have to disagree with this, to enforce this you have to restrict other, more fundamental rights. It is more of an ideal - Do onto others as you would have them do onto you - Would you like the ‘Golden Rule’ aka 11th Commandment enforced, or perhaps taught in public schools? > > I would agree with your statement if you replaced ‘rights’ with ‘reasonable expectation’ however All of this is assuming that “rights” are necessarily a matter of law which must be enforced. I think that it is abundantly clear that rights are not a matter of law. They only become a matter of law when a state deems a particular right to be deserving of protection and enforcement. By no means should all rights receive this special privilege. Is there and should there be legal protection for **KCSuze’s** right to privacy and freedom from harassment? To some extent, yes! And indeed there is, to a considerable extent. Should it be protected to the extent of making her treatment at the hotel an illegal, actionable offense? Well, no, probably not. The right to privacy applies mostly to the freedom of private citizens from government intrusion, not to rude hotel staff. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t recourse available, and that it shouldn’t be taken. Actions ranging from a complaint to management all the way up to litigation are available, and somewhere in that range is the appropriate means of dealing with the problem. None of that (even the fact that legal action could be taken!) means that, because **KCSuze** is taking a stand for her rights, means that other, more obscure or more fundamental rights must necessarily be enforced. We are talking about a private citizen standing up for er own rights, not state enforcement of rights enshrined into law, which I think we can all agree is a special condition. As for the “Golden Rule,” how is that a right or even something that we should reasonably expect others to obey? It’s an ethical philosophy that falls apart pretty quickly when subjected to any scrutiny. Also, I’m pretty sure the 11th Commandment is “Don’t get caught.” Geez, don’t you know _anything_?? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Pixiesnix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Pixiesnix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pixiesnix)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/68 "2006-01-12T05:59:54Z")
Update: I called the 1-800 number and verified my complaint. The guest relations representative said that Red Roof doesn’t condone that sort of behavior and that an investigation will take place. What will actually be done, I have no idea. Once again, thank you all for your support. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/69 "2006-01-12T20:37:11Z")
> [@KCSuze](#): > > Update: I called the 1-800 number and verified my complaint. The guest relations representative said that Red Roof doesn’t condone that sort of behavior and that an investigation will take place. What will actually be done, I have no idea. > > Once again, thank you all for your support. I used to work at a hotel chain, and if their proceudre is like ours, it’ll probably go something like this: They will get a written version of your complaint and have x-number of days to reply to it. They’ll give their side of the story, and then Corporate will decide who is telling the truth. You’ll likely be offered some sort of apology and a few free nights’ stay if they decide in your favor. Usually, when a complaint went against our hotel, we had to pay a small “fine” (like $50). It’s highly unlikely they’ll make the chain do anything to the employee. That’s usually up to the management of the partiular location. If the manager just rolls his eyes at it, nothing will be done, discipline-wise. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/70 "2006-01-12T22:45:53Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > It’s highly unlikely they’ll make the chain do anything to the employee. Don’t you’ll think that they’ll at least tell the employee that there was a complaint? That might make her keep her lame comments to herself. What if this was the second or third complaint about the same employee? Is it your opinion that any hotel chain would basically do the same thing? If so, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to boycott every Red Roof across the U.S. and go to a different chain instead. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/71 "2006-01-12T23:26:32Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I don’t see that comment as hateful, more like condensention, but I wasn’t there at the time. > > Could that give a hotel a reputation - I guess, but look at it from their POV, a married man shows up with someone apparently barely legal, if at all (from Bricker’s description) and claims she is his wife. You run a respectable hotel, maybe having a few families staying at the time. I could see them not really wanting you there, actually even if they carded her and she pulled out, of all things your marriage certificate, I could still see the hotel not really wanting the image of a older married guy sleeping w/ a underage girl displayed to the other guests. > > (BTW this is about a post that\*\* Bricker\*\* posted, not the OP) What’s not “respectable” about a lesbian couple staying in a hotel? How is it the hotel’s job to decide which couples are “respectable” anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/72 "2006-01-12T23:27:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What’s not “respectable” about a lesbian couple staying in a hotel? How is it the hotel’s job to decide which couples are “respectable” anyway? Oops, I see you were only talking about **Bricker’s** post. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/73 "2006-01-12T23:51:26Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > It’s highly unlikely they’ll make the chain do anything to the employee. Don’t you’ll think that they’ll at least tell the employee that there was a complaint? That might make her keep her lame comments to herself. What if this was the second or third complaint about the same employee? Is it your opinion that any hotel chain would basically do the same thing? If so, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to boycott every Red Roof across the U.S. and go to a different chain instead. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/74 "2006-01-13T02:20:03Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Don’t you’ll think that they’ll at least tell the employee that there was a complaint? That might make her keep her lame comments to herself. What if this was the second or third complaint about the same employee? Maybe, but then again, they all may have a good laugh over it. Not all managers care. Most do, of course, but you run across bad apples every now and then. When I worked at the hotel, I had the misfortune to work for one of the nastiest people I have ever known. She was the assistant manager Since we all knew her, her viciousness couldn’t affect us, because we knew to ignore her. The manager knew she was mean and rude, but didn’t do anything about it. I personally witnessed her being rude or nasty to the customers. We would get complaints about it all the time. She would simply reply that the customer was lying, and about half the time would get away with it, because some of the stories were pretty fantastic. When complaints came on other employees, (depending on her mood toward that person at the time, of course,) she would mock the complaint letter. > [@](#): > > Is it your opinion that any hotel chain would basically do the same thing? If so, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to boycott every Red Roof across the U.S. and go to a different chain instead. I think they all deal with complaints to the 1-800 numbers with the same basic procedure. Some managers take it more seriously than others, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/75 "2006-01-13T18:07:50Z")
I spent some time googling “homophobia” or “homophobic” and “red roof inn” using various combinations of terms, but didn’t find them on any lists of homophobic business incidents. I was thinking there might be some central clearinghouse of homophobic businesses so that patterns could be tracked in case we need to boycott anyone. On the contrary, I found that Focus on the Family has a [list of gay and lesbian-friendly businesses](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/12/15/radical-right-dr-dobson_n_12298.html) to boycott. So let’s find a copy of that list and give those places our business to show Dobson what we think of him. 😛 I did find a mention of Cracker Barrel as homophobic, but then they’re even better known for racism. What next with them? Stomping bunnies? :wally I just mentioned the Holiday Inn incident to show I personally witnessed a zero tolerance response to homophobia, so kudos to Holiday Inn, but that incident was open and in front of a hundred witnesses. Under those circumstances, there was really no response other than to fire the employee. Also, maybe being in Decatur, GA made for a more gay and lesbian-friendly atmosphere. From the above link, I did find the Human Rights Campaign .pdf guide to buying gay: [http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/hrc\_buyersguide.pdf](http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/hrc_buyersguide.pdf) Still, **Suze** , I’ll wait to hear that you have achieved satisfaction with the management of Red Roof Inn before I’ll spend any money there. Are you going to bring it to the attention of corporate HQ? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/76 "2006-01-13T19:34:40Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > Still, **Suze** , I’ll wait to hear that you have achieved satisfaction with the management of Red Roof Inn before I’ll spend any money there. Are you going to bring it to the attention of corporate HQ? I don’t get this. Don’t go to _that_ Red Roof Inn maybe but all of them? These hotels are independently owned. Why would you boycott all Red Roofs when this was most likely an isolated incident at one hotel in this chain and any other large chain would likely have acted in exactly the same way to the complaint? That is ridiculous behavior. While I believe the story to be credible, we are still taking the word of a semi-anonymous person whom we have never met. I’ve never understood this mentality which I have seen multiple times on message boards. It falls into two categories for the most part. It’s either an over reaction or meaningless bluster from someone who never would have used the business in question in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/77 "2006-01-14T00:46:32Z")
> [@mojave66](#): > > She did? I was a motel maid years ago. There were things we were instructed NOT to do-- disturb the customers before they checked out. Talk loudly near a guest’s room. And NEVER make a comment about a guest, ever. > > Gosh, I didn’t realize my boss restricted my freedom of speech. I thought only the government didn’t have the right to restrict that. The maid unquestionably has freedom of speech, this does not exempt her from her responsibility in it’s excercise which could get her fired. > [@](#): > > Sure, most average folks wouldn’t think of not being singled out for humiliation isn’t a “right” per se, but for anyone who’s been targeted that way, relief from the asshats and idiots of the world sure feels like a “right” that has been infringed. I do understand what you are saying, but to misuse the word rights is not going to ‘reach’ the ‘hetrosexuality community’. For crying out loud we have a doper singing ‘stand up for your rights’ here. > [@Bricker](#): > > I favor a more rigorous approach to discussion, myself. I would never have described my experience as violative of my rights… it was mererly crass, rude, and unwelcome I agree. > [@Johanna](#): > > . I never intended to invoke the law in this situation. This whole huge hijack arose because kanicbird insisted on misinterpreting my words, attributing a narrow meaning while ignoring the broader meaning which is right there in the dictionary. Since I am a ‘peabrain’,\*\* Johanna\*\*, please tell me why the ‘right’ of KCSuse not to be upset trumps the right of the maids to freedom of speech??? (just to continue, KCSuse, I have no problem with your pit, nor your actions, I think the hotel staff shouldn’t have done what they did to you and yours, just don’t think it’s a so called ‘right’.) ---
**Author:** ![mojave66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mojave66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mojave66)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060/78 "2006-01-14T07:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > (just to continue, KCSuse, I have no problem with your pit, nor your actions, I think the hotel staff shouldn’t have done what they did to you and yours, just don’t think it’s a so called ‘right’.) Then all you’re arguing is semantics, and given the fuzzy nature of words, that’s kind of pointless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-roof-inn-homophobic-blabbermouths/338060.md?page=3)