For fuck’s sake, can’t we leave the medieval attitude behind?
Ah shit, I can’t even be bothered to do a proper pitting on such a self-righteous fuckwit as Mr. Forrest, it’s just that sometimes you see something on the news that really erodes your belief in the human race’s ability to one day treat people as people.
The guy does have a right to decide who he allows to share a double bed in his home. But in that case, he shouldn’t open his home up as a business.
I can’t get that upset about it, because it just sounds like pseudo-natural-selection at work. I mean, isn’t it really, really stupid for a bed & breakfast, of all businesses, to discriminate against homosexuals? What next, antique store owners?
I’m not perpetuating stereotypes. I’m just sayin’, is all.
I would like to say some B&B’s are also the owners personal home, as such I believe they should be allowed to make whatever rules they want for their guests, since it crosses the line between buisness premisis and home. Still their attitude is reprehensible in this day and age.
Oh they certainly have the right to make whatever rules they want, and certainly he is entitled to refuse a room to anyone on any grounds, but to calll someone a deviant and a pervert is just beyond the pale.
In a way I feel sorry for the bloke, after all, not only does he hold repugnant beliefs, and have the inability to shut up when it should be obvious that just about now would be the time to keep quiet, he honestly seems to be naive enough to believe that not providing a double bed will prevent sexual activity .
Oh, they have had their STB rating removed, according to the BBC article, so probably best not to bombard them with emails.
I think it’s still best to encourage them to flex their muscles a bit with regard to allowing the B&B to advertise a rating which they are no longer entitled to. From the mail I sent 'em:
I think your answer is in the quote that says they will only allow married couples and singles to occupy their double bed room. I seems they don’t want any unmarried couples, of any persuasion, to share a room.
That’s what they’re claiming now, after the event. No chance a court would take that claim seriously without some decent evidence that that was always their policy. And in any case, it still would be challengeable under equal-opportunity and human rights issues.
Since they’ve appointed themselves morality enforcers, I wonder how and if they monitor possible “unnatural” acts among married heterosexuals.
Why do I envision a tiny camera lens in cabbage-rose wallpaper?
“Stop that right now, you heathen perverts!”
Or a detailed list of prohibited activities on the registration card: missionary position only, no audible sounds, flannel nightwear required…