Being discriminated Against

fluffnutter

ringo_24601 wrote: »

ok.. it might not be gender discrimination, but it is sexuality discriminating.

They've basically said that 2 heterosexual couples could stay, but 2 homosexual couples could not. i.e. mixed vs same sex.

If you allow 'multiple couple' bookings, you can't discriminate on their sexuality, therefore you can't say 'no same sex bookings'

But is it? Disallowing a same sex group because they're homosexual is discriminatory. Disallowing a same sex group because you believe they'll be noisy and disruptive isn't. I'd argue that they're simply doing the latter. It's a rubbish policy, but I don't think it's an illegal one.

taded

All I want to do is it cant be one rule for mixed couples and a different one for same sex couples, it really has upset me. Normally Im not one to moan or complain about anything but this really has got to me. I'm writing a letter to the campsite with a copy of the equality terms act 2010 as they may not be aware of this. I shall wait to see if they reply to me. Thanks for all the comments ( and by the way I know its a civil patnership for whoever the clever person was who left that comment)

biscit

Not deliberately, no. It's not discrimination, but that doesn't mean it's not a discriminatory practice. It's an unintended consequence.

There are consequences of practices that are discriminatory, even if there was no malicious intent behind them.

Discrimination through thoughtlessness isn't as bad as discrimination due to bigotry, but that doesn't make it OK.

RadoJo

I suppose the problem is of how they can distinguish between two same sex couples and a group of four women on a hen do? I agree that it seems unfair that they are effectively disallowing same sex couples, but I wouldn't be surprised if hen parties trying to book into accommodation with these kinds of rules have tried telling them that they are actually couples before and so have introduced a blanket policy which covers them for such eventualities.

It's a tricky one - presumably as two couples wanting a quiet holiday, you appreciate the reasoning behind their refusal to accept bookings which are (or at least seem to be) from groups who may want a more lively time of it, so how would you manage it in their position? I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you have any ideas you might find that they are receptive to suggestions which might enable them to differentiate between groups who might cause them trouble and same sex couples who want a quiet break. Perhaps if you called back, explained the situation and asked them if they have considered the potential for accusations of discrimination they might be open to suggestions.

[Deleted User]

You simply enforce decorum.. state 'no stag/hen parties. This is a quiet campsite and we do not available for parties.'.

If there's a problem with people, call the police, have them charged and throw them out. Don't decide that a group made up of one gender will automatically be there to cause trouble

Banning single sex groups is just lazy

RadoJo

ringo_24601 wrote: »

You simply enforce decorum.. state 'no stag/hen parties. This is a quiet campsite and we do not available for parties.'.

If there's a problem with people, call the police, have them charged and throw them out. Don't decide that a group made up of one gender will automatically be there to cause trouble

Banning single sex groups is just lazy

I agree, but presumably this rule has come about because the large majority of police call-outs in the past, or for similar businesses etc have been for trouble caused by single sex groups and so they have taken a business decision to save themselves the bother. I have to say, although the police are paid to sort out this kind of trouble, I imagine they would probably get to a point where they would advise the owners of the site to try and mitigate the problems themselves by implementing some kind of policy to prevent such an occurrence.

I would also imagine that the scenario you have outlined would result in a lot of lost profits for the business - presumably some people would consider the police being called to the site disruptive and would expect their money back for any nights where their enjoyment of their surroundings was ruined, not to mention the potential for poor reviews on holiday websites etc which would do lasting damage.

As much as I feel for the OP and believe that this rule may well be too broad to avoid discriminating, I have stayed in places where the behaviour of the other guests has left a lot to be desired and in those circumstances I can see why they would prefer not to subject their staff to either complaints from other customers or the task of trying to break up a rowdy party in the wee hours of the morning.

SallyForth_2

RadoJo wrote: »

I suppose the problem is of how they can distinguish between two same sex couples and a group of four women on a hen do? I agree that it seems unfair that they are effectively disallowing same sex couples, but I wouldn't be surprised if hen parties trying to book into accommodation with these kinds of rules have tried telling them that they are actually couples before and so have introduced a blanket policy which covers them for such eventualities.

It's a tricky one - presumably as two couples wanting a quiet holiday, you appreciate the reasoning behind their refusal to accept bookings which are (or at least seem to be) from groups who may want a more lively time of it, so how would you manage it in their position? I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you have any ideas you might find that they are receptive to suggestions which might enable them to differentiate between groups who might cause them trouble and same sex couples who want a quiet break. Perhaps if you called back, explained the situation and asked them if they have considered the potential for accusations of discrimination they might be open to suggestions.

and worse, what about the single sex couples who are part of a group hen/stag do? I think 1 couple could be classed as a couple, but 2 or more couples is a group, regardless of gender.

lindos90

1) It would be interesting to see what they would have done, if it was only one gay couple. That would identify if they are discriminating.

I seem to remember a case recently about a gay couple who were turned away from B&B, can't remember the outcome, I'll have to give it a google.

Hope you had a good time dispite how fustrated you must have felt at being turned away.

go_cat

At least you found out before you got there you would have probably been turned away and then you would have had the issue of finding alternative accomodation

Have a good trip!

Foggster

derrick wrote: »

So you lied to her?
Same sex couples cannot be married in this country, they have a "civil partnership".

EG question H6 from the 2011 Census;-

- Husband or wife
- Same-sex civil partner
- Partner
- Son or daughter
- Step-child
- Brother or sister
- Step-brother or step-sister
- Mother or father
- Step-mother or step-father
- Grandchild
- Grandparent
- Relation – other
- Unrelated (including foster child)


.

A little hair splitting here. I am sure the OP doesnt need to have it spelt out to her. My gay friends are "married" in my eyes and no it may not be the eye of "da law".

The OP explained that they were 2 x couples and that should have been good enough.