Couple: Hotel Wouldn't Rent to Us Because We're Gay

WLTX.com ^ | 3/29/2007 12:16:38 PM | N/A

[CJ Wolf]

It's not cause they were gay, it's because they weren't married. LOL!

[Cementjungle]

I got turned away by a hotel once because I had 2 cats with me. Life's just so unfair sometimes!

[Wuli]

I understood I was speaking an orginalist form of the Constitution, which I think is, even in this manner, a form that even Clarence Thomas would agree with.

I was personally noting to myself how, in my lifetime, it seems to me, personally that the lives of people like Jackie Robinson (and the 15 black players joining the majors by 1959), Sidney Poitier, Sammy Davis Junior, and even Cassius Clay and many others like them did more for "integration" than all the "civil rights" laws on the books (outside of the voting rights act, (even with its great flaws)).

[thulldud]

Yes, we have strayed far from the "original intent."

Real people bring about living reform. Government "reform" brings about ossification and eventually tyranny.

[PotatoHeadMick]

*Personally, the marriage bed between a man and women is made for pleasure whatever form that might take.*

I certainly agree however nowhere in your original post did you mention marriage. I ass-u-med nothing; I took the very obvious implication from your statement that because the Good Lord did not specifically design certain parts of the human anatomy for sexual intercourse then only naifs or dupes could indulge in certain sexual activities that involved anything other than genitalia (read your post again).

Now last time I checked the fingers, lips, tongue, back of the neck, ear lobes and women's breasts were not designed for sexual intercourse either but if you refrain from using these parts of the body then sex would be nothing more than joyless rutting.

However you now claim that was not your point but rather that the enjoyment of sex should be restricted to the marital bed (am I right, or am I as-u-me-ing again?)

And therein lies the rub, you see you may have misunderstood the purpose of this site, it's called Free Republic and it means just that. It is dedicated to upholding the principle and freedoms of the US constitutional republic. Among those feedoms is the right of consenting adults - married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual - to indulge in whatever sexual practices they desire in the privacy of their own homes, and of course the concomitant right of hoteliers to refuse to indulge such activities under their roofs.

Unfortunately recently there has been a tendency among some posters to believe that this site is about upholding "traditional" morality, or Christian values, it ain't. It's about political freedom and nothing else and I get a little frustrated when I read posts from busybodies and Godbotherers (I'm not necessarily labelling you as such but if the cap fits and all that) who believe it is their God given right to preach their morality and sit in judgement of other free born citizens.

Just my take on things.

[walsh]

Oh, really?

So the owner of a property can deprive me of my right to carry a gun on me? Or tell me I can't carry a small bible in my pocket? I don't think so. I maintain my Constitutional rights no matter whose property I'm on.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

A property owner should not give up their constitutional rights, go against their own conscience, for the convenience of an unmarried couple. No one should be forced to rent their own property to anyone.