The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Is discrimination EVER justified? Options
TheParser
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:37:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
The Guardian (London) reports this morning (online) that an English court has ruled: A smallish hotel may NOT limit double bedrooms to MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL couples.

A gay couple wanted to book such a room, but the hotel said that it violated the hotel's policy, which they said is based on their Christian values.

*****

Here in the States, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case from a company that is challenging the new health law's mandate that employers pay for the "morning-after" pill for ladies (to prevent pregnancies). Such a pill, the company claims, violates the Christian values of its owners.

*****


Personally, I tend to side with the hotel and the company: (1) The hotel policy is not strictly anti-gay. A straight UNmarried couple would also be barred. (2) Although I personally think that the "morning-after" pill is wonderful (think of all the unwanted children who will not come into this world to creat havoc!), I can understand why some Christian people would find such a pill offensive, since they (publicly, at least) oppose any kind of abortion.


DO YOU HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS REGARDING THESE TWO CASES? (I know that discrimination is horrible because it makes the rejected person feel less than equal. But are there cases in which all of us must accept discrimination? For example, this old geezer would not be welcomed or even allowed in many night clubs that cater to beautiful and hip young people.)



James
pedro
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:45:39 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
Sorry TheParser, but if you intend setting up in business you should research the legalities first. If your in hospitality then that will involve such discriminatory issues. In the same way there are requirements that will disable you from adhering to your religious dictates if it interferes with, say, your abilities to communicate if that is inherent to your job (in the UK for example someone lost the right to wear the burqa at her place of work because she was a teaching assistant and it was ruled (rightly I think) that this limited her capacity to communicate ideas to her pupils). If you disagree with such judgements, then there are civil ways of protesting. If your ideas are wildly out of line with the ethos of a country you intend to emigrate to, or seek asylum from, then perhaps you should reconsider your options.
ithink140
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:47:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Yes, I too side with the hotel since it was, or appeared not to be, discrimination against gays. The discrimination was against sex outside marriage... or so it is understood.

What about when it was alright to smoke in hotels... could a hotel owner discriminate against smokers? Yes, of course... and some did, justifiable so. Why should the sex issue be any different.

What if a tramp asks for a room? He stinks and is refused a room or he is dressed badly, could the hotel owners refuse him a room? Yes they could.

So in short, discrimination is alright under certain circumstances. In the case of the gays, it was on moral grounds. However it would not be right to discriminate on the grounds of skin colour, because that is racism and it is not a moral issue.

Not all laws are good laws, and not all interpretation of law is good.
pjharvey
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:14:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,079
Neurons: 69,453
And what would English courts rule in the case of bigger hotels?

Seriously, I am thoroughly against discrimination, and particularly against such trite discrimination.

In the specific, I think that 1) if I were a hotel owner I would know better than losing potential clients in periods of crisis because of my (insane) morals, 2) the morning-after pill does NOT equal abortion (and, by the way, I am strongly favourable to abortion).
ithink140
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:24:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
What I side with is the hotel owners right to discriminate on the grounds of their religion. To justify the principle of discrimination I gave the example of smokers and tramps.

One man's trite is another man's reason and one mans insanity is another man's reason. Pejorative language never gets the point over.

As to discriminating on the grounds that a couple are gay... then personally I would not do so.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:26:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,079
Neurons: 222,592
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Discrimination, in its broad sense is vital.

Similar to ithink's example, I rent out rooms in my house. Part of my 'ad' is the statement that the offer of a room does not apply to anyone who cannot pay the rent, nor to anyone found to be doing anything illegal, including the use of drugs.
This is all written into the agreement we sign. If they violate that agreement, they leave.
I excluded alcohol from that ban, mainly because the mores of this society is that one drinks, even though I don't. I'd get no tenants if I banned alcohol!

A scaffolding company refusing to employ as a scaffolder someone who can't stand a foot above the ground without getting dizzy is being sensible.

Refusing to employ someone because she's female, or black, or Protestant would normally be 'unfair discrimination', but there are still exceptions.
A company producing mens' clothing might not need a female model, whereas a company making dresses might not want a male model. These people are not qualified for the job being offered.

As a note on the 'sex' side -
The YWCA in Plymouth now have "Womens' Dorms" and "Mens' Dorms".
The YMCA have single rooms, shared rooms (two single beds, for people of the same sex) and double rooms (two single beds for people of opposite sexes). I don't know if they check your marriage certificate.Whistle

pjharvey
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:58:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,079
Neurons: 69,453
Discrimination on moral grounds is one thing, compliance with the law is quite another.
And good sense yet another...
ithink140
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:31:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
It was a test case, Harvey. Now the couple either have to get out of the business or compromise their beliefs.

Conscience is allowable.... what about conscientious objectors who broke the law by refusing to serve in the army? They were jailed, and the law was an ass. There are times when one is driven to break the law. There were folk in Nazi Germany who broke the law by refusing to fight...were they wrong? Of course not. What about the courageous black lady who sat on a white man's bus during the period of segregation in the US? Was she wrong to challenge the law? No she was not!

Breaking the law may well constitute good sense.
LMcL
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:11:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/21/2013
Posts: 852
Neurons: 112,727
Hi, James.

I agree with Drag0n and the rest who have pointed out the value, indeed necessity, of broad discrimination. It's really the same thing I said on another post when replying to you: we all profile. The problem, and I doubt you'd disagree, is when we narrow the focus. Neither I nor you nor anyone else wants to be discriminated against for something we can't help: skin color, sex, disability, age, etc. And yet, bad things happen to good people. Where I struggle, and maybe this is where you're going, is when government mandates what can and cannot be done. It does this with a great, clumsy hammer. Everything is basically black and white (no racial pun intended). There are some interesting studies regarding group behaviors and how beyond approximately 150 to 300 individuals, a tribe breaks down with regard to its social, egalitarian efficiency and tends to splinter off into additional tribes. We passed that number some time ago, shortly after Roanoke (Hmm...). The U.S. has been called a great cultural melting pot. Sure, it's been called a great many things but, despite all that melting, no one wants to be discriminated against, and since we often have competing interests we collectively agree to prevent discrimination when we can agree upon what is a "protected class." Since that clumsy hammer isn't adept at driving home delicate points it does so with large spikes, and inevitably someone's protected class is someone else's pain in the ass. Hence, we have the cases you mentioned. In the case of paying for birth control, most people seem to be uncomfortable with government legislating morality, and yet when government attempts to take a proactive step to address an economic and social issue by arguing that it is cheaper to pay for birth control rather than the logarithmic consequences of unwanted pregnancies we have another hammer stroke. Perversely, reminds me of the old Pete Seeger, Lee Hays song.

I know I'm not telling anyone anything we shouldn't already have learned in kindergarten, I'm simply presenting my take on the problem. Small business owners, be they hoteliers or religious based operators are not typically regarded as protected classes when they presume to offer services to a collective public. My solution is not a novel one, but neither is it easily applied. Essentially, I try to keep my eccentric behaviors to myself. My desire to be left alone on a long airplane flight isn't equivalent to someone who wishes to sing along with his or her headset on the same flight. I consider my silence benign and consider my neighbor's loudness malignant. My desire to have a meal in a restaurant with my family where our conversational volume does not extend past our own personal space is not equivalent to the lone ranger on a mobile phone speaking so that the entire establishment learns of his personal banalities. James, you already know I'm a motorcyclist (offer still stands, by the way), but even those of us within the same tribe run afoul of each other. My neighbor seems to feel that firing up his Hog at four in the morning, and then revving that baby's decidedly illegal pipes 'til every last dog is barking in the neighborhood, is ok. He thinks he is a protected class. I don't share this view. But I don't expect him to permanently park his extraordinarily loud bike, just to have a thought for the spillover consequences of his actions. Do my examples reveal that I'm a bit noise sensitive? The point is, I don't want to behave in a way that harms (negatively affects) another, but I expect the same in return. Neither businesses nor neighbors can exist in a society and expect to operate in a bubble. The tradeoff is compromise and requires personal accountability with a sensitivity to others.
Tovarish
Posted: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:52:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Isn't this quaint?,

do they also have the manditory missionary position for us married couples?, do we have to keep our nighties on and the light out? all sorts of things come to my mind.

By the way, there is a chemist in a large country town nearish to me who will not fill prescriptions for the pill as it goes against his catholic beliefs.

TheParser
Posted: Thursday, November 28, 2013 6:24:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
Thank you, everyone, for your very thoughtful replies.

By the way, if I remember correctly, that hotel is in a part of England called Cornwall. Is that a very conservative part of England? I have no idea about the political divisions in England.
TheParser
Posted: Thursday, November 28, 2013 6:57:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
pjharvey wrote:
I am strongly favourable to abortion).



Oh, yes!

Me, too!

I think that the only thing better than abortion is birth control.

I do, however, agree with the anti-abortion people that abortions are a nasty business. So birth control is the better way to go.

Personally, I am so glad that the new health-care law in the States requires employers to pay for the morning-after pill. Pro-abortion people deny that the morning-after pill amounts to an abortion. There I agree with the anti-abortion people: the pill is, indeed, tantamount to an abortion. Let's be honest.
scarecrow
Posted: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:14:36 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/10/2013
Posts: 16
Neurons: 471
Location: Denham Springs, Louisiana, United States
ithink140 wrote:
Yes, I too side with the hotel since it was, or appeared not to be, discrimination against gays. The discrimination was against sex outside marriage... or so it is understood.

What about when it was alright to smoke in hotels... could a hotel owner discriminate against smokers? Yes, of course... and some did, justifiable so. Why should the sex issue be any different.

What if a tramp asks for a room? He stinks and is refused a room or he is dressed badly, could the hotel owners refuse him a room? Yes they could.

So in short, discrimination is alright under certain circumstances. In the case of the gays, it was on moral grounds. However it would not be right to discriminate on the grounds of skin colour, because that is racism and it is not a moral issue.

Not all laws are good laws, and not all interpretation of law is good.


Applause Well said.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Friday, November 29, 2013 5:43:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
The comparison of homosexuality with "race," or skin colour seems to me to be justified. After all, there are enough people and religions who make a moral issue out of either or both. Whether the state has an obligation to assert and defend a person's right to be a customer, patron or guest I'm not sure; I suppose it depends entirely on the particular situation whether discrimination is reasonable or not.
TheParser
Posted: Saturday, November 30, 2013 7:06:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
News Flash!


I have just read in the online Guardian newspaper (London) that the United States has just sent a new ambassador to the Dominican Republic.

The ambassador and his husband have arrived to the anger of many "religious" folks.

What do you think?

Is the United States being provocative in sending a gay ambassador and his spouse to a Latin-American country?

Should gay ambassadors be sent only to more enlightened countries, such as in Western Europe?

I know (yes, I know) that the United States would not have dared to send a gay ambassador to the Middle East or Africa, where the hatred of gays (at least, publicly) is proudly proclaimed.
RuthP
Posted: Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:34:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
TheParser wrote:
The Guardian (London) reports this morning (online) that an English court has ruled: A smallish hotel may NOT limit double bedrooms to MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL couples.

A gay couple wanted to book such a room, but the hotel said that it violated the hotel's policy, which they said is based on their Christian values.

*****

Here in the States, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case from a company that is challenging the new health law's mandate that employers pay for the "morning-after" pill for ladies (to prevent pregnancies). Such a pill, the company claims, violates the Christian values of its owners.

*****


Personally, I tend to side with the hotel and the company: (1) The hotel policy is not strictly anti-gay. A straight UNmarried couple would also be barred. (2) Although I personally think that the "morning-after" pill is wonderful (think of all the unwanted children who will not come into this world to creat havoc!), I can understand why some Christian people would find such a pill offensive, since they (publicly, at least) oppose any kind of abortion.
The hotel is a public business. The hotel has no religion.

Whether one is gay or straight, married, cohabitating, or simply sharing a room for convenience is not the business of the hotel owners. The owners should keep their noses and their religion out of others' rooms.

This is not the same as smoking, which (1) presents a risk to the property, employees and other customers (fire), and (2) damages property by leaving the byproducts (odor and particulate) of smoking behind. (3) Are the owners allowing gay married couples to stay? No? Then (though equally wrong) the situations are not the same.

The company is a business. The company has no religion.

(1) Plan B, the morning after pill prevents conception, not implantation: ergo, no abortion (Ignorance--the company owners'--is no excuse.) (2) Health insurance is a part of the compensation provided an employee (akin to being a part of one's wages). (3) Decisions on the utilization of health care dollars for legal health care procedures/choices belong to the individual, not to the individual's employer--whether a business or an individual. The owners should keep their noses and their religion out of the employees' private lives.

In both these examples, the owners of a business making money by servicing the public have decided they have a right to impose their religion on other individuals. This is a violation of the others' rights. No one is asking the hotel owners to participate in or state support for gay sex. No one is asking the company owners to use any birth control or state it is the right thing to do. The owners in both cases are being allowed to live their lives and practice their religion; they need to allow other people private lives in turn and not attempt to impose their religion on others. (Both sets could use a little scientific education, too--but I won't force it on them.) We live in a pluralistic society. One may wail and rail; one may plead and sway; one may not force others to believe or behave as one does.



DO YOU HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS REGARDING THESE TWO CASES? (I know that discrimination is horrible because it makes the rejected person feel less than equal. But are there cases in which all of us must accept discrimination? For example, this old geezer would not be welcomed or even allowed in many night clubs that cater to beautiful and hip young people.)
The club devoted to beautiful hip young people is a business and unless they have started a new religion with rules against age has absolutely no excuse, not even a false, specious one, for discrimination. The owners might not like old geezers and people may laugh at old geezers (bad manners are not illegal), but the club may not exclude old geezers on the basis of age. Now, if it is a private, members-only club, then they may, but a public business, no.

One may speak one's piece; one may post signs and place books with one's point of view; one could even fix all the Muzak and radios to play only religious music and mount pictures of the horrors awaiting the rest of us in hell; one may not limit the choices of others regarding legal behaviors. For too many with religious restrictions "practicing my religion" seems to include "not allowing you to do anything I don't like". (This is as true of fundamentalist Islam as it is of fundamentalist Christianity.) I find that as I age I am becoming less and less tolerant of such bigoted discrimination.

Funny how the purported "turn the other cheek" religion, Christianity, seems so often to be the most bigoted, least tolerant, most hating set of organizations I run into. The different sects frequently seem to . . . intensely dislike . . . other christian sects, let alone other religions, which frequently seem to be viewed as not-religions.

Believers of any stripe are welcome to live their holier-than-thou lives: they may not impose their fairy-tale on me!




James
ithink140
Posted: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:25:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
You said Ruth: The owners should keep their noses and their religion out of others' rooms.

So, Ruth, you are pro-gay and anti-religion, it seems. You make that discrimination in your post. You have a right to your view, as did the couple who turned away the gays. In law they did not have that right, as they found out to their cost.

The rooms belong to the owners not the public. The hotel in question is not a state business is it. The example of a tramp is a good one. One can discriminate against such a one even though here is no threat to other guests.

IOs it ever right to discriminate against gays or heterosexuals? Supposing gays overtly paraded their sexual preference by manners when guests in a hotel… others may find this disturbing and offensive, just as they would be put out by a stinky and untidy tramp. Even if the gays were not overtly so, one should have the right to refuse rooms on the basis of their principles as long as this did not break the law. However,the case in question was a test case and it was ruled that the law was broken. So the upshot is that the owners either have to get out of the hotel business or compromise their standards. They have the right to those standards, and we cannot foist on them a change, can we? But they must choose now whether to conform or leave the business. It is to be noted that the hotel owners were not in any way, as admitted by the two gays, offensive or rude to them. They politely stated their views.

Personally I would ask no questions of my guests, but the right to discriminate on certain grounds must always exist. If on admitting gays they paraded their sexuality I would evict them after a warning, just as I would evict a rowdy guest or refuse entry to a badly dressed person or a nude or a tramp. Surely hotel has the right to have a dress code... a behaviour code... a language code?


Sex is a private matter and not for public consumption or in your face behaviour. Some gays are noted for such behaviour and make a big deal out of their sexual preferences.

Do heterosexuals loudly proclaim that they are such? Do heterosexuals construct a raft of odd manners and affectations as do some gays? One must behave in another’s establishment.

I agree that we have no right to foist our views on others… that is a given, but they must behave if they are to stay.

In short I think a gay should not have to state that they are such, or be discriminated against as long as they behave and keep their mores to themselves. It is rather like the race issue which is called at the slightest suggestion and often when unjustified. I hope that hotel owners will continue to have the courage to set standards that apply to both heterosexuals and gays alike, without fear or favour.

The right to discriminate must be retained as long as that does not break the law, and the expectation of proper behaviour is essential in the hotel business.

RuthP
Posted: Sunday, December 1, 2013 6:53:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
ithink140 wrote:
You said Ruth: The owners should keep their noses and their religion out of others' rooms.

So, Ruth, you are pro-gay and anti-religion, it seems. You make that discrimination in your post. You have a right to your view, as did the couple who turned away the gays. In law they did not have that right, as they found out to their cost.
I have no problems with religion for those who are religious! It is the requirement of some religious that I and others not of their beliefs behave in accordance with their religious restrictions. I do not intend to wear a chador. That is an imposition of their religion on one who does not share that belief set. This is antithetical to freedom of religion (or lack thereof).

The rooms belong to the owners not the public. The hotel in question is not a state business is it. The example of a tramp is a good one. One can discriminate against such a one even though here is no threat to other guests.
Actually, when one rents a room, one (with some restrictions) 'owns' the room for the term of the rent. You may not damage it or commit illegal acts in it, but short of that it is yours. The hotel owners may not enter that room without the permission of the occupants, with some exceptions for emergency.

IOs it ever right to discriminate against gays or heterosexuals? Supposing gays overtly paraded their sexual preference by manners when guests in a hotel… others may find this disturbing and offensive, just as they would be put out by a stinky and untidy tramp.
Are you equating being gay with being a "stinky and untidy tramp"? So, someone completing a long backpacking trip and finally arriving at a hotel, where she could finally avail herself of shower and laundry service should be discriminated against because she is currently "stinky and untidy"?

Where did you get the idea that your preferences should prevail over all others? I assume that if it were interracial marriage the owners disapproved, you would find it acceptable that they refuse accommodation to a mixed-race couple as well. No. I do not find that acceptable, nor do I find discrimination against gay couples acceptable.


Even if the gays were not overtly so, one should have the right to refuse rooms on the basis of their principles as long as this did not break the law.
Again, then I assume if their 'principles' disapproved of interracial couples . . . or African couples . . . or British couples . . . or Chinese couples. Nope. I do not find this acceptable. Sorry they are so hinkey about the bedroom habits of others. They are offering public accommodations, not a private members-only club. They need to provide accommodations to the public.

However,the case in question was a test case and it was ruled that the law was broken. So the upshot is that the owners either have to get out of the hotel business or compromise their standards. They have the right to those standards, and we cannot foist on them a change, can we?
They have a perfect right to their own standards in their own home. They are not in their own home, they are in the public accommodations of their hotel. This is not the same thing and that is something many people have difficulty understanding. When one is offering to do business with the public, one is obligated to do business with the entire pubic. This is not the same thing as inviting people into one's home (much as the hotel and restaurant industry would like to 'invite us in' as an advertising ploy). If the owners reside in a room or a suite in their hotel, then they may certainly bar gays from that space. Rooms open for rent by the public: no!

But they must choose now whether to conform or leave the business. It is to be noted that the hotel owners were not in any way, as admitted by the two gays, offensive or rude to them. They politely stated their views.
Being "politely" discriminatory does not make it any less discriminatory. I assume if these two ran an emergency medical service they would feel justified denying service to gays as well. We had too many deaths in this country when black Americans were denied medical care at whites-only hospitals; too many cases of black musicians, entertainers, sports figures or students being forced to stay at other hotels or in houses of local black families because the band/team/cast/other students stayed at a whites-only accommodation. That was part of the "principles" of the owners of the whites-only establishments. No. I do not accept this garbage for gays or bisexuals or transgender people either.

Personally I would ask no questions of my guests, but the right to discriminate on certain grounds must always exist. If on admitting gays they paraded their sexuality I would evict them after a warning, just as I would evict a rowdy guest or refuse entry to a badly dressed person or a nude or a tramp. Surely hotel has the right to have a dress code... a behaviour code... a language code?
A rowdy guest may be placing the property, employees, or other guests at risk. A rowdy guest may be interfering with the sleep of other guests. This is completely different from being gay or being Asian or being British. Discriminating against me because I have poor taste in dress is asinine. There are usually legal restrictions regarding nudity in public places. As long as one is not breaking the law . . . enough said.

Sex is a private matter and not for public consumption or in your face behaviour. Some gays are noted for such behaviour and make a big deal out of their sexual preferences.
Here you are talking about something akin to rowdy behavior. Now, again, there are legal definitions of lewd behavior. If the behavior does not rise to that level, then avert your eyes. Legal behavior is legal behavior is legal behavior. That does not guarantee one will like it, but it does say that one must either deal with it or choose to remove oneself: one may not impose one's own belief system on others.

"Some gays" and some whites and some straights and some blacks and some young and some old behave badly. This is not an excuse for discrimination, but rather for politely dealing with the individual offender. This is not the same thing as prejudicial behavior toward an entire group.


Do heterosexuals loudly proclaim that they are such? Do heterosexuals construct a raft of odd manners and affectations as do some gays? One must behave in another’s establishment.
Tell me exactly what you mean by "loudly proclaim". Again, it seems you approve of or tolerate certain behaviors in heterosexuals, but find them offensive when done by homosexuals (you have not specified: what is "loudly proclaim" again?) If you do not like to watch two men or two women holding hands or kissing, then avert your eyes or remove yourself from the situation. If the behavior does not rise to the lewd behavior in public definition, then it does not rise to an actionable level.

I agree that we have no right to foist our views on others… that is a given, but they must behave if they are to stay.
I do not understand your point here. I guess a homosexual couple should enter separately, take different elevators to their room and enter the room at different times, so as not to "loudly proclaim" their sexual orientation. Get over it. We all have our sensibilities. We all must learn to avert our eyes if we are uncomfortable. You do not like homosexuals. Deal with it. The world need not pad its corners to make your life comfortable.

In short I think a gay should not have to state that they are such, or be discriminated against as long as they behave and keep their mores to themselves.
In other words, you won't string them up if they go back into the closet and stay there? I am sorry you and the hotel owners are so delicate and that this is so painful for you. It must make your lives very difficult, but again, it is not the responsibility of the world to make everyone behave the way you want them to.

It is rather like the race issue which is called at the slightest suggestion and often when unjustified. I hope that hotel owners will continue to have the courage to set standards that apply to both heterosexuals and gays alike, without fear or favour.
They did not apply their "standards" to gays and straights alike. There is absolutely no indication they would have allowed gay married couples to stay in their hotel. They wish to impose their religious restrictions on others.

Beyond that, one may not discriminate on the basis of marital status, so discriminating against unmarried men and women who wish to share a room is not legal either. These owners need to stop speculating on whether the people renting their rooms are engaging in sexual activity. It is none of their business. Perhaps their customers are just splitting the cost of accommodations.


The right to discriminate must be retained as long as that does not break the law, and the expectation of proper behaviour is essential in the hotel business.
You have yet to provide any evidence of any inappropriate behavior other than that of the hotel owners, who apparently felt they have the divine right to dictate the private behavior of others. You have presented no evidence that the gay couple was running up to other guests, interrupting conversations, and saying "We're gay: come to our room and watch the sex!" You have given no examples of inappropriate behavior. My conclusion is that neither you nor the owner is comfortable with the concept of same-sex love. OK. Everyone has their limitations, but their discomfort (or yours) does not define acceptable behavior in public accommodations.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 2:20:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,127
Neurons: 584,274
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Applause Applause Applause , Ruth!
Peter seems to fancy about gay sex maniacs putting up orgies right in the lounge ;-)
loveyoudown
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 2:54:00 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 9/16/2013
Posts: 21
Neurons: 125
Never.
Feeble Dragonfly
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:04:52 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/10/2011
Posts: 136
Neurons: 400
I can't really expand on RuthP's excellent response which firmly places this debate where it should be - in the legality of the actions taken. Or illegality, as it (thankfully) turns out.

However, ithink140 asks: "Do heterosexuals loudly proclaim that they are such? Do heterosexuals construct a raft of odd manners and affectations as do some gays?" And I would like to respond.

Heterosexual people have loudly proclaimed and celebrated their sexuality throughout history. Valentine's day, public wedding proposals, elaborate wedding ceremonies, newspaper announcements of engagements, weddings and milestone anniversaries, celebrity wedding photographs sold to magazines, entire advertising industries established either to use sex to sell products or to engineer 'essential' romantic gifts for your heterosexual partner - the Milk Tray man? the old Nescafe advertisements? All of these are examples of how the world revolves around the heterosexual relationship.

And that is to say nothing of the seedier side of all of this - the lads mags and 'top shelf' publications which promote the 'ideal woman' for men, the women's magazines which promote themselves on offering tips to women on how to dress for men, on how to 'catch' men, on how to 'keep men' once they're caught, and finally on how to give men the sex they want and pretend you enjoy it too. Oh, and the Sun page 3? That's heterosexual, amongst many other things.

I have never thought twice about holding hands with my partner in the street, about turning to kiss them when leaving their company, or indeed just when they've done something so irrestible I have to kiss them, or when I've met them from the train. Nor have I had any concerns about dancing with them, saying that I love them out of the blue within the hearing of others, or calling them darling. And nor should I. But what ithink is saying is that the social acceptability of these actions hinges on the genders of those involved. And what I say is it shouldn't matter because we are all people. These are all human actions, in human relationships, expressing natural human emotions.

As for 'odd manners and affectations' - what can be worse than a 'cutesy' couple speaking to each other in baby language. "Aw, how is my lickle-ickle baby-waby smoochkins. Did you miss your darly-warling honeybunch today?" accompanied by loud 'smacking' kisses which are surely for no-ones benefit but the beholder? That's got to make everyone roll their eyes, genders-irrelevant!? ;-)
Feeble Dragonfly
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:07:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/10/2011
Posts: 136
Neurons: 400
Also, to stay on-topic - discrimination ("recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.") is wholly justifiable.

Unfair discrimination, on the other hand, well, the clue's in the name ...
Feeble Dragonfly
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:29:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/10/2011
Posts: 136
Neurons: 400
Wow, I seem to be harping on this topic today. Sorry guys.

I just flicked over to the BBC News page and spotted that the top headline in the most popular stories bar is: "Tom Daley in relationship with man". Seriously, above all of the tragedy that this weekend held, a news site like this has a gossip headline about an olympian's sexuality at the top of its results list. Why does it matter? Why are we so obsbessed with sex, and why is sexuality front page news? It quite goes to show, against ithink's stance that 'nobody wants to know', just how interested the public really are. And I believe that's a large part of the problem - 'everybody' does want to know. As RuthP says, we should stop wondering what people are doing behind closed doors, and then perhaps people will enjoy what they do behind their own doors more? And care less about others' private lives.

NB: I am assuming here that the article is 'outing' Tom Daley, I haven't read it - perhaps they are just telling us he has a new friend?
ithink140
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 7:14:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
I see your responses Ruth. You misapply much of what I said and put your own slant or interpretation upon it.

I believe in a God but do not associate or support any religion, but neither do I box them with abusive language as you did in your first post. Yes the hotel is a business and as such has no religion, but is is obliged to uphold standards and must retain the right to discriminate as in the example of bad behaviour or the example of the tramp. I have already stated, before your somewhat overexcited post, that I would not discriminate against gays, and that the law has to, in this case be obeyed.

Of course once you have let the room it is a private place for the one who occupies it... I was referring to the right not to let while acknowledging that the law , in the case of gays, does not permit such action.... you well knew that Ruth.

No... I was using the tramp as an illustration of the right to discriminate and you well know that. I acknowledge that most gays, as with most heterosexuals are well behaved. My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those gays who do misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used.

My point with regard to behaviour is that gays often push their sex in your face... who bloody cares what their preference is... do they have to shout it from the rooftops and ponce about with makeup and silly behavioral patterns? Sexual mores are a private matter. Why can't they just get on with what they do in private and leave it at that?

My overall point is that the right to discriminate within the law is sacrosanct and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool. But then again a rider needs to be put in place and I refer again to that courageous black lady who sat on a white man's bus. In that case the law was an ass and needed challenging. The law is often wrong.

There is much I could take you up on but your post, but it is in one tone whereby you do not acknowledge the least point and slant your replies... so this will be sufficient.
Feeble Dragonfly
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 7:27:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/10/2011
Posts: 136
Neurons: 400
ithink says: "My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those gays who do not misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used."

Surely, though, the point here would be rejection of people who are misbehaving - the grounds are misbehaviour, and would be applied to anyone who misbehaved. (I don't want to go into what exactly is meant by 'misbehvour here as I think that could be a whole other can of worms). Therefore it is not unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is the illegal part. I think you'll find that the law, whilst it recognises precedents, is capable of discriminating on the facts of individual cases.
ithink140
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 7:32:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Feeble, you said: Heterosexual people have loudly proclaimed and celebrated their sexuality throughout history


Yes they have, but not in everyday life.... not your average person. Let us live in the day shall we, and not in history. The average heterosexual is secure in being such and does not trumpet their sexual preference for the world to note.

Yes you get exceptions, but they do not prove the rule do they. Taken in the round the homosexual makes more of their sexual preference than the heterosexual... it is time for them to grow up... to become mature and more confident of who they are.

It is pitiful that one should seek to define oneself on the basis of sexual preference is it not?

On the other hand gays, what a silly term, that is let us call then homosexuals... for that is what they are... make a great fuss of declaring their sexual preference as if that is the defining point of who they are. We do not want to know that, or to see silly limp wrists and daft makeup as if a sexual preference were something to parade or celebrate or be 'proud' of.




You said Feeble: I think you'll find that the law, whilst it recognises precedents, is capable of discriminating on the facts of individual cases.


The law is an ass and is only as good as its interpretation. However,in the case of the two homosexuals I support it, since it was a case of unfair discrimination. I do however believe that the hotel owners misunderstood the situation, and they were, as admitted by the homosexuals, polite at all times. As I have stated in previous posts, they now have to either compromise or leave the business.


Edit from previous post: "My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those homosexuals who do (not) misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used."

Strike out not.

PS: In short we now have another card to call: Discrimination against homosexuals.

What is next? Men only golf clubs? There are a number of women only golf clubs in the UK but that fact is ignored when shouting from the rooftops. Personally I think to debar someone on the basis of gender is rather silly... except perhaps in the loo, but to enshrine this in law? What next? The genderless Women's Institute? How is that for an oxymoron?






RuthP
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:01:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
ithink140 wrote:
I see your responses Ruth. You misapply much of what I said and put your own slant or interpretation upon it.

I believe in a God but do not associate or support any religion, but neither do I box them with abusive language as you did in your first post. Yes the hotel is a business and as such has no religion, but is is obliged to uphold standards and must retain the right to discriminate as in the example of bad behaviour or the example of the tramp. I have already stated, before your somewhat overexcited post, that I would not discriminate against gays, and that the law has to, in this case be obeyed.

Of course once you have let the room it is a private place for the one who occupies it... I was referring to the right not to let while acknowledging that the law , in the case of gays, does not permit such action.... you well knew that Ruth.
Unless one is running a private members-only club, one is offering public accommodations. One accommodates the public, not one's prejudices. There is no inherent "right not to let". If you wish to serve only 'your kind', form a members-only club.

No... I was using the tramp as an illustration of the right to discriminate and you well know that. I acknowledge that most gays, as with most heterosexuals are well behaved. My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those gays who do misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used.
Then I shall say you have failed to illustrate well. I spoke to what I perceived as your point. Again: being stinky and dirty (as in my hiker example) is not sufficient reason to deny accommodation. If your tramp cannot pay, then the tramp is unable to let. This has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of discrimination against a class of people, or on the legality of discrimination based on sartorial choice or recent access to lavatory facilities.

Now, one could make an argument that a restaurant could exclude my hiker until after she had cleaned-up, for reasons of hygiene. That is a completely, totally different matter. That would be akin to the rowdy guest or the smoking guest who puts the facilities, employees, and other guests at (a degree of) risk. This is a kind of discrimination: the fine-point kind, with facts behind it.


My point with regard to behaviour is that gays often push their sex in your face... who bloody cares what their preference is... do they have to shout it from the rooftops and ponce about with makeup and silly behavioral patterns? Sexual mores are a private matter. Why can't they just get on with what they do in private and leave it at that?
You have still failed to define "push it in your face", "shout it from the rooftops". The last time I looked, "poncing about" with makeup and behavioral patterns you find to be silly is not illegal. (Neither is so-called "valley speak" which I find excessively annoying:it is not a reason to refuse service either (sigh).) You may not impose your dress standards or preferred mannerisms on others. It is none of your business. Avert your eyes; take yourself out of the situation. I would provide the same advice to a fundamentalist Muslim complaining about the women in shorts or miniskirts, or with uncovered faces frequenting the hotel lobby. If you would object as vehemently to a (heterosexual) wedding proposal being made on bended knee in a fancy public dining room, I would advise you the world has moved on: this is not illegal.

You make a very large leap from dressing patterns, use of makeup, and (undefined) mannerisms to sexual behavior. I suggest you (as well as the hotel owners) quit associating everything strangers do with the bedroom and further with specific behaviors in the bedroom. The focus is unseemly, it seems to be distressing you, and it is none of your business.


My overall point is that the right to discriminate within the law is sacrosanct and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool. But then again a rider needs to be put in place and I refer again to that courageous black lady who sat on a white man's bus. In that case the law was an ass and needed challenging. The law is often wrong.
Actually, I find the point to be that discrimination involves making individual decisions based on factual information. The word is still very much used that way in technical and professional fields. You are using this (perfectly good) definition of the word at a time the common "prejudicial against a group--usually a minority" definition is being discussed. Confounding the two definitions is not a valid defense against the latter, common, definition.

Such defense, utilizing the technical definition of discrimination, must be made using firm and clear examples. This has not been done. The examples you have provided have regarded behavior, but have been insufficiently precise as to meaning. It is impossible for me to determine whether there is possible ground for agreement with you on any of your points. My impression (possibly incorrect) is that these imprecise usages are purposely selected to allow you to make an unreasonable class-discrimination argument sound something like a potentially reasonable point-discrimination-between-two-facts argument. It doesn't work that way.

I agree with you about Rosa Parks and all the other courageous people who came before and after. You are correct, that there are types of class discrimination which have not been made specifically illegal, or (as was and is frequently the case with racial discrimination) may be illegal, but not be enforced. It is questionable whether one could currently be convicted of discriminating against blond-haired, blue-eyed people. There is no law against it primarily because such discrimination has not been seen.

It is minorities with whom (some others)(other minorities) are uncomfortable on the receiving end of class-based discrimination. Similar to my previous argument: I assume you would find discrimination against blue-eyed blonds legitimate, as there is no legal bar. No? Well, I don't care that discrimination against gays is illegal. I care that it is unfair. I don't care that racial discrimination is illegal; it is unfair. I don't care that religious discrimination is illegal; it is unfair. Discrimination against blue-eyed blonds would be unfair as well.

Legality is the resort of society when fairness fails. Legality is the resort when discrimination in the true sense fails and prejudice prevails. Of course, in a better light, legality is also society's resort for harm prevention or remediation.


There is much I could take you up on but your post, but it is in one tone whereby you do not acknowledge the least point and slant your replies... so this will be sufficient.
RuthP
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:29:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
ithink140 wrote:
Feeble, you said: Heterosexual people have loudly proclaimed and celebrated their sexuality throughout history


Yes they have, but not in everyday life.... not your average person. Let us live in the day shall we, and not in history. The average heterosexual is secure in being such and does not trumpet their sexual preference for the world to note.
Really. Tell that to the pair in my local coffee house last Saturday. They were sitting on a couch, hands in the other's hip pocket, repeatedly locking lips.

On the whole, I observe no more egregious behavior in same-sex couples than I do in mixed-sex couples. If you are observing otherwise, I suspect it is more a matter of your mental governour affecting what exactly the 1% of reality around you that you perceive is.


Yes you get exceptions, but they do not prove the rule do they. Taken in the round the homosexual makes more of their sexual preference than the heterosexual... it is time for them to grow up... to become mature and more confident of who they are.
Your fallacious assumption: you recognize all the gay couples around you.

It is pitiful that one should seek to define oneself on the basis of sexual preference is it not?
Think That couple in the coffee shop didn't seem to think so. Failing to deny one part of one's humanity does not imply that that is the only part which defines one humanity. You are once again imposing your thoughts on another's life.

On the other hand gays, what a silly term, that is let us call then homosexuals... for that is what they are... make a great fuss of declaring their sexual preference as if that is the defining point of who they are. We do not want to know that, or to see silly limp wrists and daft makeup as if a sexual preference were something to parade or celebrate or be 'proud' of.

We could explore other silly terms applied to gays, but they all have in common that they were imposed from the outside, as an attempt to be rude. I try to describe people as the prefer being described. It seems common courtesy not to denigrate a chosen label.

Who is 'we' kemo sabe? You are once again foisting your preferences on others. My 'we' includes me and my friends and my acquaintances, including f&a's on the forum here. 'We' do not all agree. The entire 'we' the human beings of the world includes gays.




You said Feeble: I think you'll find that the law, whilst it recognises precedents, is capable of discriminating on the facts of individual cases.


The law is an ass and is only as good as its interpretation. However,in the case of the two homosexuals I support it, since it was a case of unfair discrimination. I do however believe that the hotel owners misunderstood the situation, and they were, as admitted by the homosexuals, polite at all times. As I have stated in previous posts, they now have to either compromise or leave the business.
If the owners misunderstood the law, then perhaps their now enhanced understanding will allow them to understand that the hotel rooms they rent to the public are public accommodations and 'belong' to the renter for the duration. Perhaps they will now understand that in the United States, we live under secular laws, not religious laws. Perhaps they can understand that they in no way compromise themselves by respecting religious liberty.


Edit from previous post: "My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those homosexuals who do (not) misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used."
Not sure your point here. Now that discrimination based on race is illegal, it is impolite to call attention to discrimination?

Strike out not.

PS: In short we now have another card to call: Discrimination against homosexuals.
Again, I don't understand. Are you claiming there was no discrimination before it became illegal? What is your point?

What is next? Men only golf clubs?
This is legal. It is a private, members-only club, not a public accommodation.

There are a number of women only golf clubs in the UK but that fact is ignored when shouting from the rooftops.
Cannot speak for the UK, but in the US: legal. They are private clubs which define their membership requirements. There can legally be private all-white or private all-black or private all-motorcycle rider clubs as well.

Personally I think to debar someone on the basis of gender is rather silly... except perhaps in the loo, but to enshrine this in law? What next? The genderless Women's Institute? How is that for an oxymoron?
FYI: the League of Women Voters admits men.






ithink140
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:50:26 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
I have said what I have said, Ruth, and stand by it. You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but I have no intention of dissecting all your responses only to have the substance of my views dismissed by you with a twist or deliberate obtuseness. You are welcome to the last word. I am happy with my stance.

I disagree strongly with most of what you say, and some points you make are way off target and, frankly, wrong. I will just tackle a few points to show the tenor of your responses to you.

If I reply any more this could go on and on. I get who you are, and that you defend your own through the glasses you wear. This is not a debate or the way to conduct one. You are seeing what you want to see and ignoring the real point of what I say.

Really. Tell that to the pair in my local coffee house last Saturday. They were sitting on a couch, hands in the other's hip pocket, repeatedly locking lips.

Don’t you understand, Ruth, the meaning of the ‘average person’? Here you go again being obtuse and using the exception in an attempt to prove a rule.

It is without question that a fact that homosexuals make a big issue out of their sexual preference and it is dishonest to argue otherwise. They ‘come out’ for goodness sake and label themselves as gays. Many adopt strange behavioural patterns and voices.


Your fallacious assumption: you recognize all the gay couples around you.


Don’t be silly, Ruth, of course the behaviour I outline does not apply to all homosexuals... surely you understand that this goes without saying. It does however apply to a great a number of them. Don’t argue against the facts. Lesbians often have severe haircuts in imitation of men’s styles, wear men’s trousers and adopt butch attitudes, and men often wave limp wrists and have peculiar speech patterns. Of course they are entitled to this behaviour, but I perceive it as affected and unnatural.




… the hotel rooms they rent to the public are public accommodations and 'belong' to the renter for the duration…..


No they do not belong to the renter. They are rented, not owned and the contents, nor indeed the rooms, are theirs but remain in the possession of the owners. The renters are held to certain standards when occupying a room and these can be enforced as you well know.


"My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those homosexuals who do misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used."

Not sure your point here. Now that discrimination based on race is illegal, it is impolite to call attention to discrimination?


Not at all. Are you so blind that you are not aware of the fact that sometimes the race card is called unjustly? I am not merely referring to one’s skin colour.

If your tramp cannot pay, then the tramp is unable to let. This has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of discrimination against a class of people, or on the legality of discrimination based on sartorial choice or recent access to lavatory facilities.

What are you talking about, Ruth? Who said anything about ability to pay? Don't you understand a simple illustration to prove the right to discriminate on certain grounds? I was establishing a broader point in answer to the OP question, and not in relation to that homosexual couple. Can you not see that simple point? Or are you being obtuse? The right to discrimination is enshrined in law and within law is it not.

You are being obtuse again Ruth. Homosexuals delight in the term gay which they themselves apply. For the most part they make a fuss of their sexual orientation do they not.

I say for the third time, for you seem to have ignored this, that I would not have rejected the couple in question on the basis of their sexual orientation. this is not said for your pleasure but is a reflection of my standing as a person. But... I do not like sex in my face which is a feature of many in the homosexual community, and I think it pitiful that one should make such a issue out of sexual preference to the point of adopting a label and peculiar habits and speech patterns.

The 'we' you so sarcastically refer to does not include anyone class, person or body of people, it is merely a figure of speech and you knew that didn't you, Ruth. It is very difficult to reason with you when you go off on a tangent like that.

That's it now... you may have your say and final word on the matter.
early_apex
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:56:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
Several years ago, I changed jobs and had to relocate. The movers came and packed up our things, but it was late in the day when they had finished. My wife and I (she is female and I am male) decided to spend the night at a new motel in town. Since all of our identification indicated a local address, they refused to rent us a room. And we had reservations.
RuthP
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:42:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
early_apex wrote:
Several years ago, I changed jobs and had to relocate. The movers came and packed up our things, but it was late in the day when they had finished. My wife and I (she is female and I am male) decided to spend the night at a new motel in town. Since all of our identification indicated a local address, they refused to rent us a room. And we had reservations.

Think Because even married couples might do something hinky in a motel? Eh?
early_apex
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:14:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
That's what I'm a-thinkin'.

Clearly, the hotel management wanted to avoid becoming a destination for local trysts. Of course, you really cannot control people's behavior in private.
ithink140
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:23:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Some hotels do not allow visitors to rooms for overnight stays… the room is still in the charge of the hotel and even a paying a guest can be evicted.
ithink140
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:23:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Some hotels do not allow visitors to rooms for overnight stays… the room is still in the charge of the hotel and even a paying a guest can be evicted.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:30:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,127
Neurons: 584,274
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
ithink40 wrote:
I believe in a God but do not associate or support any religion, but neither do I box them with abusive language as you did in your first post.


???, Peter?

You talk about believing in God and Ruth's "abusive" language in the same sentence, in a thread about discrimination.
What a miserable fluff!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.