Scottish Hotelier wins Gold for Hypocrisy

[neonlyte]

A Scottish hotelier has refused a booking from a gay couple because they required a double bed.

He refused saying, "I cannot condone your perversion."

He did then go on to offer the lads a twin bedded room!

In a radio interview he went on to say that he had the highest regard for 'blacks, jews and other minorities'.

He 'guest house' has been removed from the Scottish Tourism Board approved list.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

A Scottish hotelier has refused a booking from a gay couple because they required a double bed.

He refused saying, "I cannot condone your perversion."

He did then go on to offer the lads a twin bedded room!

In a radio interview he went on to say that he had the highest regard for 'blacks, jews and other minorities'.

He 'guest house' has been removed from the Scottish Tourism Board approved list.

I'm gald to see that other countries besides the USA have idiots too. For a while ther I thought we had all of them.

 

[Guest]

Unbelievable!


I'm shocked!!!


I cannot get my head around this!


The guy is clearly deranged.


You mean to tell me that a Scotsman actually turned down some cash???


Lou - who holds no prejudice whatsoever.

 

[Guest]

Scotsmen wear skirts with no knickers.

Nuf said.

 

[neonlyte]

Unbelievable!
The guy is clearly deranged.
You mean to tell me that a Scotsman actually turned down some cash???
Lou - who holds no prejudice whatsoever.

I think he was being 'canny', a twin costs more, twice as much bed linen to wash AND the chances were he wouldn't have to bother washing one lot

 

[Guest]

Scotsmen wear skirts with no knickers. Nuf said.

Men in skirts without knickers? 'nuf for me. P.

 

[Guest]

I think he was being 'canny', a twin costs more, twice as much bed linen to wash AND the chances were he wouldn't have to bother washing one lot

Ah yes! Much more Scotsman-like. I hadn't thought about it from that angle.

Although, he seems fixated by the idea.

Lou

 

[pixiesjuice]

Sounds like the hotelier comes from one of the Hebridean islands, Lewis is full of hypocrites and Sunday christians.

They have to be seen and heard to renounce what they call perversions but behind closed doors it's another matter entirely.




I do know of a small hotel on the Isle of Mull that not only welcomes gay men but crossdressers too, (they host special parties and have quite an extensive wardrobe from what i've heard).

 

[cantdog]

My mother says the same to Jehovah's Witnesses, whenever they come around as travelers in a line of Jesus discussions:

"I do not give money to support the spread of false doctrine." Very firm she is, and then ushers them as firmly to the open air from whence they came.

But she was never on any "approved" listing, so far as I know, but our own.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

My mother says the same to Jehovah's Witnesses, whenever they come around as travelers in a line of Jesus discussions:

"I do not give money to support the spread of false doctrine." Very firm she is, and then ushers them as firmly to the open air from whence they came.

But she was never on any "approved" listing, so far as I know, but our own.

My mom likes to ask them where Adam and Eve's daughter in laws come from and then close the door.

 

[cantdog]

Bastards!

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I may be having a blind spot, but where is the hypocrisy?

My objection is not to your abuse of the bigot, or his bigotry. It is to your abuse of the term.

The guy’s ruling was obviously discriminatory, but he spoke out clearly explaining what his rule was, and his reason for having the rule. There was no spinning or canting — just straight forward bigotry!

He declared his bigotry straightforwardly — and was well rewarded by losing his Scottish Tourism Board approval rating.

No hipocrasy on either side, that I could see.

 

[neonlyte]

I may be having a blind spot, but where is the hypocrisy?

My objection is not to your abuse of the bigot, or his bigotry. It is to your abuse of the term.

The guy’s ruling was obviously discriminatory, but he spoke out clearly explaining what his rule was, and his reason for having the rule. There was no spinning or canting — just straight forward bigotry!

He declared his bigotry straightforwardly — and was well rewarded by losing his Scottish Tourism Board approval rating.

No hipocrasy on either side, that I could see.

The hypocrisy, to my mind, is in offering a twin bedded room as an alternative, thus 'absolving himself' from their perversion (as he put it).

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The hypocrisy ... is in offering a twin bedded room ... thus 'absolving himself' from their perversion...

hypocrisy noun the practice of claiming to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case.
[origin: Greek] hupokrisis 'acting of a theatrical part'.

The Hotelier offered what to his mind was an alternative to two men sleeping together – two men sleeping in separate beds in the same room. That his mind was diseased with homophobia does not make his regulation hypocritical, rather it reflects a possibly sincere attempt at compromise.

Nonetheless, the Hotelier had no right to interfere with, or try to regulate, his guests’ lifestyle. It was for pro-actively trying to force his guests to adhere to his morality, that the Hotelier lost his approval listing, not for offering them an alternate room.

 

[Torg]

Re: Re: Scottish Hotelier wins Gold for Hypocrisy

Originally posted by cheerful_deviant
I'm glad to see that other countries besides the USA have idiots too. For a while there I thought we had all of them.

Yeah, the US just has them in charge of the government.



Not Bush in 2004

 

[neonlyte]

The Hotelier offered what to his mind was an alternative to two men sleeping together – two men sleeping in separate beds in the same room. That his mind was diseased with homophobia does not make his regulation hypocritical, rather it reflects a possibly sincere attempt at compromise.

Nonetheless, the Hotelier had no right to interfere with, or try to regulate, his guests’ lifestyle. It was for pro-actively trying to force his guests to adhere to his morality, that the Hotelier lost his approval listing, not for offering them an alternate room.

Burley,
I agree with what you say. I heard a radio interview with this chap today and it was clear that he had been 'set up'. A guy e-mailed the hotel booking a double room, the hotel confirmed the reservation. Another guy sent an e-mail to confirm that 'his partner' had booked a 'double room'. At that point the hotelier made his 'proclamation' and insisted they could only use a twin bedded room. The journalist interviewing him tried to get the hotelier to admit he was homophobic, the hotelier insisted that his offering of a twin bedded room, for the gentlemen to share proved he was not homophobic.

Hence my view that he was being hypocritical. The two guys worked for a Scottish newspaper, one can presume they were acting on a 'tip off' or out of revenge.

Sorry not to reply sooner, the 'footie' got in the way.

 

[gauchecritic]

Nonetheless, the Hotelier had no right to interfere with, or try to regulate, his guests’ lifestyle. It was for pro-actively trying to force his guests to adhere to his morality, that the Hotelier lost his approval listing, not for offering them an alternate room.

Actually the hotelier had every right to 'intefere' with and try to regulate his guests lifestyle. Its his hotel, he can make whatever damn rules he pleases. If guests don't want to abide by them then that's their choice and probably his loss.

Gauche

When reading the above opinion please take into account the fact that it is short and does not include any actual reasoning eg: family hotel, genuine homophobia, strict religious principles and such and such.

 

[Guest]

Burley, I still enter establishments with a sign hung prominantly on a wall that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Perdita

 

[Guest]

Christiano Ronaldo!

He cums: he scores!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Burley,
I agree with what you say. I heard a radio interview with this chap today and it was clear that he had been 'set up'. A guy e-mailed the hotel booking a double room, the hotel confirmed the reservation. Another guy sent an e-mail to confirm that 'his partner' had booked a 'double room'. At that point the hotelier made his 'proclamation' and insisted they could only use a twin bedded room. The journalist interviewing him tried to get the hotelier to admit he was homophobic, the hotelier insisted that his offering of a twin bedded room, for the gentlemen to share proved he was not homophobic.

Hence my view that he was being hypocritical. The two guys worked for a Scottish newspaper, one can presume they were acting on a 'tip off' or out of revenge.

Sorry not to reply sooner, the 'footie' got in the way.

In this case, the two guys that tried to book the room were also hypocrites. My dictionary gives more than one definition and one of them is "The pretense of having characteristics one does not possess". Unless they were actually gay partners, they were passing themselves off as something they were not.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Burley, I still enter establishments with a sign hung prominantly on a wall that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."Perdita

Nonetheless, if that service is reserved, based upon a prejudiced view of their patrons, they can be severely punished — officially through laws, popularly through bad publicity, and even by small groups boycotting or picketing the business.

From the article supplied, one cannot tell whether he was proactive in his bigotry, or if he was set up to demonstrate his bigotry for a reporter, as neonlyte suggests in his later report based upon the radio interview. In either case, what is clear is that the bigotry displayed is real.

Gauchecritic: If his is not a genuine homophobic response, what was it – artificial double-bed-a-phobia?

Finally, to return to my original point, hypocrisy is not the proper word to describe the man’s reported actions. His actions were flat out bigotry, no cant or pretension about it.

If it turns out that the Hotelier was actually gay, but was overcompensating so no one would guess, THAT would be hipocrisy!

 

[Guest]

In this case, the two guys that tried to book the room were also hypocrites. My dictionary gives more than one definition and one of them is "The pretense of having characteristics one does not possess". Unless they were actually gay partners, they were passing themselves off as something they were not.

Let's not stretch this off the page. Pretending you are gay if you aren't is not being a hypocrite. Hypocricy has to do with a dissembling or pretence of virtues, not a simple deception of image or role.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

... If it turns out that the Hotelier was actually gay, but was overcompensating so no one would guess, THAT would be hipocrisy!

I'm only dealing with the word and its proper definition here. I would not call a closet homosexual a hypocrite, given the basic definition in my post above. A person who is homophobic or anti-gay and plays the liberal among liberals to fit in would be a hypocrite, but I don't see how a homosexual afraid to reveal himself is one.

Perdita

 

[Couture]

Maybe he should go out for a little Soccer Practice soc-soc-soccer practice.

 

[gauchecritic]

Gauchecritic: If his is not a genuine homophobic response, what was it – artificial double-bed-a-phobia?

I actually meant a literal fear of homosexuality not the red-kneck, knee-jerk, protest-too-much bigotry definition which it has become, which is why I qualified it with genuine.

Whilst discrimination is something civilised society will not (publically) condone, disliking individuals whose practices in whatever area one finds distasteful does not make it a policy from which a recognised group will be automatically debarred. The offer of the twin bedded room would seem to disprove the hoteliers "bigotry" because he was willing to compromise rather than flatly refuse.

But as any scientist will tell you, one test does not prove a theory.

It seems to me that what he was refusing was condoning an act of which he didn't approve. He wasn't interfering with or controlling their lifestyle choice, he was simply making sure he was not a party to it.

Gauche