Heterosexual Agenda Proceeds Apace

A British hotelier says new anti-discrimination regulations will kill the mood in his romantic, gays-only guest house: 

Mark Hurst, 47, said the proposed legislation would force him to open his doors to heterosexual guests.

"We feel if we were forced to a situation where we had to accept heterosexual people into our hotel, our gay clientele will not behave as naturally as they would now. "

Whole thing here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I'm sure the righties are going apoplectic at the suggestion that gays can act naturally.

  • ||

    They could make the decor a bit dowdier, just to make the straights feel more at home.

  • ||

    I'm going to guess that straight people who book a room at Big Gay Al's Big Gay Lovenest & Gym are going to be cool with the mood.

  • ||

    This is why anti-discrimination laws should only apply to government facilities. Althouhg perhaps government liscened facilities should also fall under anti-discrimination laws until we can remove the liscencing requirements.

  • Dan T.||

    Sorry Mark, but if you want freedom from discrimination then you have to give up your freedom to discriminate.

  • I. Self. Divine.||

    As a heterosexual male with a lot of close friends in the gay community, I really don't think Hurst has much to worry about. I generally seem to prefer the company of gay guys, and I always would prefer a gay club to a straight club (at least if I'm going there for the music and not to just try and get laid), yet I would never even THINK of going to a romantic gay-oriented guest house. This is for the same reason that I avoid certain rooms/corners of the aforementioned gay clubs.

  • biologist||

    joe | February 2, 2007, 12:39pm | #

    I'm going to guess that straight people who book a room at Big Gay Al's Big Gay Lovenest & Gym are going to be cool with the mood.

    or perhaps they're bi-curious

  • ||

    In theory he has reason for concern, but I agree that he has little to worry about. Most gay-oriented hotels advertise in gay magazines and newspapers exclusively and are isolated enough that it is unlikely that vacationers will stumble upon them.

    Not that I've ever been to one before.

  • ||

    Dan,

    Tonight when you're participating in your daily ritual of masturbating while simultaneously crying over your pathetic existence, ask yourself why you feel the need to be such a tool. And then go sprint into a brick wall.

  • ||

    When I was in High School, my favorite punk song was Gay Rude Boys and Girls Unite to Take Back the Dancehall.

    Ghandi said to be the change you want to see in the world. Maybe. It was either him or Mother Theresa.

  • ||

    I can't help but notice how the google ads change depending on what the subject of the thread is. They kind of compliment the post in a neat way. Hello Atlanta Gay Realtors!

  • ||

    For once Dan T made a good point. Either you can't descriminate or you can. There shouldn't be a twilight zone were certain prefered groups can descriminate but others can't. If Mr. Hurst doesn't want other hoteliers to be able to put out the "no queers allowed" signs, then he can't really whine when the government won't let him run a gay only hotel.

    Now of course, there is a principled position that says all government descrination laws are bad and Mr. Hurst or anyone else for that matter should be able to rent to whomever they want. I doubt, however, that Mr. Hurst holds that position and would be none too happy if a hotel put up a no queers allowed sign.

  • ||

    I'm in! This would make a great bizzaro romantic vacation. I want my womenz' and I to be the "straight" couple everybody keeps gay staring at.

  • Sir Disgrace||

    "our gay clientele will not behave as naturally as they would now. "

    You mean unnaturally?

  • ||

    In theory he has reason for concern, but I agree that he has little to worry about. Most gay-oriented hotels advertise in gay magazines and newspapers exclusively and are isolated enough that it is unlikely that vacationers will stumble upon them.

    Unless, of course someone books the hotel through priceline.com or hotels.com or something, and the description doesn't say "we cater to gays" or some such.

    But I agree....if there aren't going to be straight only hotels, then there shouldn't be gay only hotels either. You don't get to demand tolerance and acceptance of your lifestyle while at the same time not tolerating people with lifestyles different than yours.


    Go Bears!!

  • Bac k||

    I'm going to stick up for poor Dan.

    andy - Dan has written smarter things accidentally than you have while trying (witness your racist remarks from yesterday). The fact that people here still can't f-ing grasp the fact that all Dan does is write the exact opposite of what he thinks the consensus is going to be, frankly, makes him less of a tool than most people here. The only thing less obvious than that is how you can be smart enough to be attracted to this site, yet so idiotic with your comments. Quite the conundrum indeed.

  • :-||

    I. Self. Divine. | February 2, 2007, 12:49pm |

    As a heterosexual male... I generally seem to prefer the company of gay guys, and I always would prefer a gay club to a straight club

    Are you sure you're straight?
    Will you be watching the Super Bowl this Sunday? With gay guys?
    Will there be quiche? And spritzers?
    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  • Warren||

    Just to be clear. What Mark is concerned about is that a straight guy might react badly to some other guy coming up to him and giving him a blow job. And that the possibility blowing a straight guy that might react badly, could inhibit his guests from providing unannounced, unsolicited, fellatio on someone.

  • Larry A||

    Rule of thumb: Whatever government regulation you demand to keep people from screwing you will end up screwing you.

  • ||

    I agree with Joe. What kind of straight person would stay at a gay hotel except one who's cool with gays? It's like gay bars--they don't toss out straights, but they seem to be able to keep the mood.

    As a previous thread here said, advertising works.

  • ||

    Ghandi said to be the change you want to see in the world. Maybe. It was either him or Mother Theresa.

    Or maybe Gandhi.

  • ||

    Sauce for the gander is

    sauce for the gander.

  • ||

    in New York there is a loonbat who wants to make it illegal to use models who are too skinny.

    Not really, they are just acting according to man's fallen nature.

  • ||

    ...sorry, must have missed the copy key combination...

    I'm sure the righties are going apoplectic at the suggestion that gays can act naturally.

    Not really, they are just acting according to man's fallen nature.

  • I. Self. Divine.||

    Are you sure you're straight?
    Will you be watching the Super Bowl this Sunday? With gay guys?
    Will there be quiche? And spritzers?
    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Yeah...unfortunately I am sure that I'm straight. I say unfortunately because as an individual, I seem to fit in much better with the gay community than the straight one (ie: i pay close attention to fashion, could care less about sports, enjoy techno remixes of shitty 80's-era Madonna songs, etc.), and I would definitely get laid a lot more. My friends have often described me as 99% gay, with that 1% that I lack being the whole liking penis thing. *shrugs*

  • I. Self. Divine.||

    And no football for me, thank you. My Sunday will more likely be a shitty movie and a bongload. Quiche, however, is definitely a possibility. MMMmmmm...quiche.

  • ||

    "We feel if we were forced to a situation where we had to accept heterosexual people into our hotel, our gay clientele will not behave as naturally as they would now."

    A valid concern, and equally valid with regard to someone who (for whatever reason) wants a straight-only establishment. If only there was a political philosophy which would accomodate the needs of property-owners with gay clientele *and* property-owners with straight clientele.

    Obviously, a single straight won't change the climate at a gay hotel, but "anti-discrimination" laws don't stop there. If a whole horde of straight tourists wanted to stay at this hotel, what right would the owner have to exclude them, under the new law? And wouldn't that change the fundamental character of the establishment?

    The owner of this hotel gets to raise these issues because he's gay. Let a straight hotel owner raise the same issue from another angle, and he gets a visit from the Diversity Directorate (an actual institution in England).

  • superfreak||

    You know the first sign your gay? Its the pounding sensation in your ass.

  • ||

    I'm going to stick up for poor Dan.


    Yeah whatever, Dan.

  • ||

    Obviously, a single straight won't change the climate at a gay hotel, but "anti-discrimination" laws don't stop there. If a whole horde of straight tourists wanted to stay at this hotel, what right would the owner have to exclude them, under the new law? And wouldn't that change the fundamental character of the establishment?

    Right because gay bars' clientele has completely switched to a bunch of straight homophobes. Oh wait, they're still largely filled with gay men (or women) despite allowing anyone to come in.

  • ||

    Ghandi said to be the change you want to see in the world. Maybe. It was either him or Mother Theresa.

    Or maybe Gandhi.
    ==============================
    Crap, that was rather dim of me.

    Ok, now suppose I started a hotel for people with IQ's lower than or equal to mine? Seamus (and most of the rest of you) might feel discriminated against. Would you have a legitimate grievance? I don't think so. As a businessman, don't I have the right to cater to a niche market?

  • jgray||

    "the whole liking penis thing"

    which hole would that be?

  • ||

    "Not really, they are just acting according to man's fallen nature."

    I totally know what you mean. Walking from my car to the office door this morning I slipped on some ice.

    Ouch.

  • ||

    HAHA

    I'm not funny.

  • Keep \'em, uh, coming||

    Let a straight hotel owner raise the same issue from another angle

    stick up for poor Dan

    Heh.

  • ||

    "Right because gay bars' clientele has completely switched to a bunch of straight homophobes. Oh wait, they're still largely filled with gay men (or women) despite allowing anyone to come in."

    This is a matter of straight forbearance, not the ability of the bar owner to enforce property rights.

  • ||

    Bac k,

    I've already booked us a room at Mr. Hurst's hotel. Pick you up on Sunday, say... about 5?

  • A||

    There's actually a good discussion hidden in this flame war.

    Suppose you are a legislator in a town with a free housing market, and you have to vote on a GLBT housing anti-discrimination bill. The free market provides powerful incentives for at least some landlords not to discriminate. If social norms against gays are so strong that every last landlord will discriminate even with gays willing to pay a premium, this is probably not a town that gays would want to live in anyway, whatever the laws may be. All in all, there is a good case to be made that the statute wouldn't help anyone, and it would set a nasty precedent for further government meddling with the housing market.

    But what if you are a legislator in a place with rent control? (Such places exist. I live in one.) Under rent control, the fact that a minority tenant might be willing to pay more doesn't matter, because he can't. This breaks the market mechanism that counteracts social norms of intolerance. Should you vote for a housing anti-discrimination bill in a town with rent control?

    This is a problem that is very hard to solve by political philosophy alone. It's a problem of strategy.

    There are many similar problems in real-life politics. For instance, if you have a minimum wage, and that fact is not going to change, then you've got to have some sort of general assistance program to make up for it. Even if you believe that the poor or otherwise disadvantaged would be better off in a totally free society, or that liberty is more important though the heavens fall, you've got to be careful about the order in which you scrap regulations, and you may even have to step up the level of regulation a bit if you can't get the bad rules off the books.

    I would even go as far as to say that unwillingness to think about these issues is what gets libertarians a bad name. I think that there is a strong need for more focus on identifying ways in which deregulation would benefit weaker groups in society, and trying to do those first.

  • Paul||

    our gay clientele will not behave as naturally as they would now. "

    So...what, they'd have a bunch of gay clientele running around behaving...unnaturally? The thought.

    Somebody stop me.

  • Clay Akin||

    I'm going to guess that straight people who book a room at Big Gay Al's Big Gay Lovenest & Gym are going to be cool with the mood.

    I was.

  • Terry Michael||

    There'll always be an England...at least those of us with a Monty Python sense of humor can only hope! LOLOLOLOL

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement