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?
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.
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.
Yes. What’s so hard to understand about that, kanicbird?
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
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.
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:
I was showing care, empathy, and moral support for my sister, not talking about law. It’s a girl thing, you wouldn’t understand.
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.
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.
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?? 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
The maid unquestionably has freedom of speech, this does not exempt her from her responsibility in it’s excercise which could get her fired.
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.
I agree.
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’.)
Then all you’re arguing is semantics, and given the fuzzy nature of words, that’s kind of pointless.