The Pilgrim Planet Lodge

May 11th, 2013 at 8:05 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A couple have been turned away from a Whangarei guesthouse that refused to let them share a bed.

Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, made an online booking for a room with a king-sized bed at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge.

But when they arrived on Tuesday, they were told only rooms with single beds were available.

When they queried the booking, the owner eventually told them the booking was correct, but she was offended by same-sex couples sleeping in the same bed. She would not even let them push two singles together.

How stupid. Heh it reminds me of the time a few years ago when I turned up with a girlfriend to a hotel at 1 am asking for a double room. They replied they only had twin beds available and saw the crestfallen expressions on our faces. He then helpfully offered that they could push the beds together for us :-)

They eventually found accommodation 50 kilometres away.

How appalling.

First of all, the law is clear. You can’t discriminate. However ever if the law does allow you to, then they should state upfront on their ads that they do not allow same sex couples to stay at their lodge. That would allow people who don’t like bigots to decide never to stay there.

In the past, same-sex couples have been allowed to stay at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge, but only if they slept in separate single beds.

But Ms Collison said what went on behind closed doors was none of the Ruskins’ business.

“It is a closed bedroom, she is not invited in there.

“I’m not allowed to cuddle my partner in a shared bed, but if I walked in there with a random guy I picked up off the street she would let me in. This is my fiancee.”

A good point. Casual sex with a stranger is fine in their lodge, but not sex with someone engaged to be married.

The Ruskins believe they are exempted from the provisions of the Human Rights Act because they also live in the lodge.

“This is our home, we are not a big motel,” Mrs Ruskin said. “In our home, where our grandchildren are, where our guests are, we don’t want sodomy.”

Oh dear, oh dear. I think Mrs Ruskin needs a biology lesson. Like many anti-homosexual people she seems obsessed with sodomy. Well first of all lesbians are not equipped very well for sodomy.

Secondly many heterosexuals couples practice sodomy also. If sodomy is what worries Mrs Rushkin I suggest she just puts up big signs at her lodge asking guests not to sodomise each other while staying. Maybe she can include that in her advertisements also.

Tags: ,

329 Responses to “The Pilgrim Planet Lodge”

  1. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    “First of all, the law is clear. You can’t discriminate.”

    Homosexual fascism- as tacitly encouraged by John Key’s Progressive National Party.

    In conjunction with extreme left Labour party MPs Kevin Hague and Louisa Walls.

    Remember it well next election readers.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Huevon (228 comments) says:

    This is the great “civil rights struggle” I suppose. Bullying a couple of small business owners to prove a point. Give me a break.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The vocal , aggressive minority pushing their lifestyle on others again.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. berend (1,689 comments) says:

    DPF: I think Mrs Ruskin needs a biology lesson.

    Burn them at the stake, biggots!

    Everyone must accept our lifestyle, else we’ll come after you.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Here we go again the tub thumping fundie nutjobs are out of the closet.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,933 comments) says:

    The law allows discrimination . A young person can receive less pay for the same work as an older person.

    A 65 year old gets a free handout from the taxayer which a 64 year old doesn’t.

    “Discrimination” is a fact of life .

    Employers can employ who they like (for the moment) In Europe there are moves afoot to dictate to private business how many females they must have on their boards!

    I’m all for “discrimination”.

    It’s called freedom and instead of restricting freedom which is what the modern state is doing and becoming all powerful we must protect it ,even if that means causing offense and inconvenience.
    Once your freedom is lost it’s almost impossible to regain.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    I think Mrs Ruskin needs a biology lesson.

    ROFLMAO – its the progressives that need the biology lesson – starting with “the birds and the bees” and leading up to how babies are made.

    This modern obsession with unnatural sex acts is quite frankly bizarre

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    In this case the law doesn’t allow discrimination AFAIK.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    DPF, I looked up this place on the net and it had 5 rooms. For arguments sake let us say the HRC decides to force these people out of business like has happened overseas. What next? Would a small family homes with 2 spare rooms be forced to let to a couple of homosexuals so the couple and their children can hear their grunts and groans as they sodomize each other?

    If they get that the next thing they will be looking for a change in the law so one cannot discriminate flatmates.

    I have my doubts about the 50 km drive. I would like to know when it was? I do not think it would take that long to find a motel room in Whangarei. It would not surprise me if it was not a set up.

    In the past week or so we have had Family First lose its charity status because of it stance on homosexual marriage, some guy complaining to the HRC as the church does not want his as a Priest and a kiss in at a couple of MacDonalds.

    And anyone who objects is called a bigot.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    I agree:

    One can say that sodomy is disgusting, filthy, disease spreading, and a non-achievement – without being labeled a ‘homophobe’ or ‘bigot’!

    As homos were saying althrough the gay arrangement debate “but hetros sodomise too y’know!”

    Bloody filthy sodomites! :cool:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Last week the trumpets………back to business as usual I see…….the violins! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. iMP (2,455 comments) says:

    I thought Sodomite was scarce?…oh, that was Marmite.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Two negs for saying the law doesn’t allow discrimination. What a bunch of nut Jobs.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    You lucky bastard Chuck

    You’ve got your very own thread to talk about grunting and groaning and all the rest of your fantasies all day.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. iMP (2,455 comments) says:

    It’s simple really. Advertise that you are not comfortable with same-sex sexual relationships in your Lodge, and let the pubic, sorry, public, decide where they want to stay.

    After all, heterosexuals get turned away from gay clubs because it ‘un-gays’ their clubs, and the hetero patrons don’t even want beds. Heteros are not even allowed to kiss in some gay bars and there is a ban on coming in with an opposite gender person.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Those homos are ruining it for all of us aye chuck et al what with the ostentatious public displays of gratuitous anal sex and fanny munching.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wiseowl (974 comments) says:

    Reminds me of staying in a B&B in Brighton years ago with my wife.

    It was run by a gay couple and we had to sit at the same table every morning and witnessed the dominant one bossing the other one around.He seemed like a control freak.
    I sat on the room key and broke the plastic number attached and he went ape shit.

    Couldn’t get out of the place quick enough.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    This is only the start. This is key to understanding why homosexual “marriage” is such a game changer. From now onwards homosexual activists will use the power of the courts and the government to force conformity of thought on everyone – like it or not. Children from a young age will be bombarded with homosexual propaganda via the public education system, religious institutions will be beaten down (although the mussies will be left alone), private businesses will be told what they can and cannot think, do or say.

    It astounds me that so many of the politically ignorant fools who supported “marriage equality” genuinely thought it was about “love”. No, it is about accruing political power and forcing an acquiescence to the homosexual agenda.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. CHFR (241 comments) says:

    Well I now have my accommodation sorted when next in Whangerei.

    I can’t believe that the 2% of the population who identify as gay now feel they can dictate to the 98% of us who are not.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Yes UR, tomorrow the homos will be rutting on the streets and the children will be turned into bum boys.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    “Discrimination” is nothing more than exercising choice, judgment or preference. We all do it all of the time. You “discriminate” between dog shit and food. You “discriminate” about who baby sits your kids. As soon as I hear that word waved around I know I am dealing with a manipulative person who knows they are in the wrong and wants to shame opposition into silence.

    I do not believe the Lesbians rights should be given preference over the rights of the owners. It is not just a matter of how both parties “feel” about it, it also involves property rights.

    Other than name calling and personal attacks, I have seen nothing to refute my argument.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I thought Sodomite was scarce?…oh, that was Marmite.

    IMP

    Sorry we can’t have any levity on a subject like this. You may not be aware that there are people out there who spend their entire day worrying that they may end up copping a sneaky blow job from some homo while they are in the Supermarket. Unlikely I know but if you sit around thinking up scenarios all day anything is possible.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    A guerilla homo blow job you say but what if they also dipped your todger in marmite before the blowie?!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Akaroa (612 comments) says:

    Hey DPF, I love your pages and agree with most of your contentions. But you seem to have a bit of a reality-fade sometimes.

    As in this case. From where i’m standing Mrs Ruskin has every right to decide who shall lodge under her roof.

    When the PC brigade start paying her rates, power and other bills, then they can have a say in how she operates her business. Until then – ‘taint nobody’s business but her own how she runs her guesthouse.

    Logically, and If I read social trends correctly, Mrs Ruskin is actually doing herself out of a profitable line of business, same sex couples generally being in the more prosperous and well-off – (enlightened!!!) -sector of society.

    (And before i go, what a cheap shot of yours that was DPF when you ridiculed the lady for mixing up lesbianism with sodomy)

    David, not everybody accepts same sex coupling, even though they don’t necessarlily publicly voice their condemnation of the practice.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    This is why I intrinsically distrust homosexual politicians/activists of whatever political hue they might claim to be, for their primary purpose is to poison all and sundry with their highly sexualized worldview. The military, the Boy Scouts, the churches, public schools, entertainment and media, the list goes on and on.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    I suppose the lezzers could have strapped on and sodomised if we are doing homobwhat if’s

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    …….preference over the rights of the owners.

    kea

    But like all rights they come with obligations. Accomodation providers like this have obligations under the law, simple.

    Like I said last night to kowtow….. ” No blacks , no dogs, no Irish, no god botherers, no screaming kids, no breast feeding mothers, no incontinent old bastards, no one from Christchurch ..et al

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. 3-coil (1,199 comments) says:

    Leftie dogma would say to these dykes that “nobody is forcing you to stay” at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge – so stop bleating about how your poor wee sensitivities have been offended, fuck off and stay somewhere else where you feel more comfortable with the house rules.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. iMP (2,455 comments) says:

    Of course if anyone “advertises” they are uncomfortable with same-sex sexual couples in their Lodge they’ll be taken to court.

    Good post Urban Redneck (8:51) but in the end, I think the public pendulum will turn on the gay thing if they keep on with the aggressive stance (namely using the HRA and the Courts as a weapon).

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    First of all, the law is clear. You can’t discriminate.

    Actually, it isn’t quite that clear. There is an exception in the Human Rights Act that allows discrimination in the case of “residential accommodation which is to be shared with the person disposing of the accommodation … .” Residential accommodation then “includes accommodation in a dwellinghouse, flat, hotel, motel, boardinghouse, or camping ground.”

    So the question is, was the accommodation in question “shared”? The owners live on the property … but that can’t be enough to meet the test (otherwise the fact an owner of a campground lives in a house on the edge of the grounds would allow her/him to refuse to let a same-sex couple stay in a tent on the other side of the grounds … or the fact a manager of a 150 room hotel lives in an apartment in the hotel would allow her or him to stop same-sex couples staying in any of the 150 rooms). I’d imagine it’ll come down to the facts of the case – do the owners live in completely separate quarters? Do they share any of the facilities? And so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. iMP (2,455 comments) says:

    So “Equality” “Tolerance” and “Love” would say:

    a) the Lodge owners tolerate their gay guests ‘beliefs’ and let them stay.
    b) the gay guests tolerate the owners beliefs, and go elsewhere.

    The semantic quagmire Louisa Wall has dug for us.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    This whole sexual rights thing is quite enlightening:

    They want to “free” the world of sexual shame.

    So bestiality, nah that ain’t shameful, so we must free that from being shameful.

    Paedophilia? Again that is not shameful.

    Basically, they want sexual anarchy, and from history that ultimately leads to societies destruction.

    Public policy where sex and youth is concerned, should be aimed at involving, rather than marginalizing parents – as all relationships involve morality, and ALL children need close and personal guidence! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay, then the law needs to change.

    I support gay rights because it increases freedom and liberty. This is a removal of the owners rights, who are also entitled to their view. It is a balancing act, I admit, but the property rights part swings me onto the owners side on this one. It also does not really remove any rights from the gay couple.

    So you reckon a person can not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality and you say it is the law ? How about a couple of convicted kiddy fiddlers book in for the night…I wonder if everyone would be quoting the law then ?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    “There is an exception in the Human Rights Act”

    To hell with you and to hell with your Human Rights Act.

    A sad left wing joke. Communist subversion, the opposite of what is implied and we don’t want a bar of the act or its “exceptions”.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    iMP touches on another point. Gay people may “discriminate” against the owners and choose to stay in a more gay friendly establishment. Have they broken the law ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    How about a couple of convicted kiddy fiddlers book in for the night…I wonder if everyone would be quoting the law then ?

    It is not unlawful to discriminate against criminals under the Human Rights Act – it is not a “prohibited ground of discrimination”. Nor is “sexual attraction to underage persons” a prohibited ground of discrimination. So yes – we would be “quoting the law” in order to say it would be perfectly OK to refuse to let them stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    “I support gay rights because it increases freedom and liberty.”

    You support it because you are a slow thinking propaganda soaked uninformed Marxist moron.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    Gay people may “discriminate” against the owners and choose to stay in a more gay friendly establishment. Have they broken the law ?

    No. because the Human Rights Act only applies to offering goods and services to the public. It doesn’t apply to consumers of these.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    Nit picking crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. berend (1,689 comments) says:

    DPF: However ever if the law does allow you to, then they should state upfront on their ads that they do not allow same sex couples to stay at their lodge.

    If this is the requirement, I suggest it also becomes a requirement that same-sex hosts advertise as such. So EVERYONE can make an informed decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    RB..thanks for the laugh..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    AG, They are not “criminals”. They have served their time and paid their debt.

    Further, what say they admitted they were attracted to kids, but did not act on those impulses and therefore committed no crime ?

    You argument does not stand up to reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Once again for the really slow out there.

    Paedophilia is illegal

    Beastiality is illegal ( Christchurch I don’t know the jury could be out.)

    This thread is about two people wanting a bed for the night. I don’t know about you but for the majority of nights I go to bed I just sleep (sad perhaps, but true).

    I travelled overseas with my son and shared a bed to save cash, was I interviewed by the owner because the room had a double bed and my son was 12 ? No. Is it any business of the hotelier what my wife and I may or may not do in the room? No.

    If I was a motelier I’d be alot more worried about mobile meth labs than two people wanting a nights sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    I’m getting mightily sick and tired of these homosexuals and their liberal useful idiots and all of their pompous talk of “tolerance” and opposing “bigotry”.

    Family First’s Protect Marriage website has been subjected to multiple cyber attacks and at least two complete shutdowns. The site is now hosted on American servers as the Christchurch based web hosting company that initially hosted the site was bombarded with vile, offensive emails and even death threats.

    You see, under homofascism, diversity of thought is not to be tolerated. It’s their way or the highway.

    The pink jackboot.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    You guys collect up all the homos and burn them then it will just like another fascist nut job regime.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    My pleasure Joana. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (2,873) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 9:15 am
    “I support gay rights because it increases freedom and liberty.”

    You support it because you are a slow thinking propaganda soaked uninformed Marxist moron.

    No. I support it because it increases freedom and liberty.

    Us folk on the real right of the political spectrum believe the correct default position is no law. We on the right believe in less government interference in our lives, not more. You really need to re-evaluate your political compass Red.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    AG, you have made a sensible contribution. The owners of the place accept that a motel should not be able to discriminate in such a way.

    I would have thought most reasonable people would accept that at least in the case of a small B & B. Where the owners have totally separate accommodation that could be a different matter.

    The law should be a matter of common sense and balance. Unfortunately, we do not find such things often in libertarians.

    Another example would be in the case of a granny flat on the same property. It may have be built for a parent who has passed away. I think most people would think a couple should be forced to have a homosexual couple as tenants.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    So bestiality, nah that ain’t shameful, so we must free that from being shameful.

    Oh don’t be silly. Of course it is shameful. Cruelty and power abuse will always be deemed shameful in a humane society.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    How about a couple of convicted kiddy fiddlers book in for the night

    They would be two adults booking into a motel wouldn’ they? Your point is?

    All sorts of criminals fly, sleep, work everywhere everyday.

    And there are lots of accomodation providers who now advertise as ‘gay friendly’, thers nothing to stop this lodge advertising as
    ‘hetrosexual friendly’ thats fairly subtle although it could mean the owners are raving homo’s who are hoping to convert hetro’s to their sorid lifestyle- because as we all know this can happen over a weekend at Paihia.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (3,677) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 9:19 am
    Harriet

    Once again for the really slow out there.

    Paedophilia is illegal

    Beastiality is illegal

    No your wrong.

    Being a peadophile in NOT illegal. Having sex with kids is illegal. There is a difference and you dam well know that with your back ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    Kea,

    You argument does not stand up to reason.

    My “argument” was to state what the law says. What’s that got to do with “reason”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG#

    Stop talking shit!

    Everyone can then legally stick a sign outside of their businesses:

    Homofacists welcome.

    There. Fixed. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    expat

    I’m not feeling the love here this morning I’d better go and do some work ready at all times to repel the homo hoards that may be encroaching on Mt Albert .

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    “You really need to re-evaluate your political compass Red.”

    Who the hell are you to talk about political compasses?

    Such a political rube you don’t even know the difference between a right winger and a Conservative, or even a Republican and a Conservative.

    Just another fucked in the head Libertarian neophyte of no use to anyone other than then the other 799 who annually waste their vote on a lunatic doctrine that completely misses the political point.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    “Marriage equality” has been a top-down astroturf movement driven by the true ruling class in the West. The intelligentsia – media, academia, the political class.

    Here’s where is all likely to lead to. Left-wing eggheads are already beginning to talk openly about where they want to head next.

    Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem were testifying on how offenders responded to treatment. Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, said, ‘Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.’ He went on to say, ‘True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent

    Speakers addressed the around 50 individuals in attendance on themes ranging from the notion that pedophiles are ‘unfairly stigmatized and demonized’ by society to the idea that ‘children are not inherently unable to consent’ to sex with an adult. Also discussed were arguments that an adult’s desire to have sex with children is ‘normative’ and that the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ignores the fact that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another

    http://www.rethinksociety.com/government/pedophilia-is-a-sexual-orientation-under-ca-bill/

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evil-attendees-at-prominent-pro-pedophilia-conference-horrified-by-sessions?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b2ebd041ea-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines08_23_2011&utm_medium=email

    http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=8934

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Us folk on the real right of the political spectrum believe the correct default position is no law.

    Pfft. If there is no law then anarchy takes over in the short term. Then the biggest, meanest dog takes over and imposes tyrannical law.

    Go live in Mogadishu if you want ‘no law’.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    These two women were offered beds; they did not need to drive 50km or anywhere. Separate beds and a better night’s sleep.

    This accommodation was someone’s home. The only thing is for the owner to ask the person booking who is coming, so to speak…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    A few weeks ago , I was shocked to see an enormous ad on the side of a bus shelter in a nearby shopping complex..It was of two blokes , arms around each other , one bare chested..It was an ad for condom use. How much money has been spent on this kind of thing over the years?? getitonnz ….but it was really an ad for homosexuality. Expect more of this . The saturation of society in all things gay..and as for the that American tosser in AK..people like him turn NZ into a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    Stop talking shit!

    If you could show one point in my previous posts where I have made an incorrect claim about what the law says on this subject, you would have a point. But you can’t. So I suggest you take your own advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kea

    Right O paedophilia is a medical term.

    People are charged with indecent assault, rape etc of children and they have their convictions entered under the crimes they have committed . No one has ever been to a NZ court and charged with 18 counts of being a paedophile.

    Alcolholisim is not a crime but alcoholics commit crimes . No one has ever been charged with 18 counts of alcoholisim but thousands of alcoholics have been convicted of assault.

    Then there will be paedophiles out there who have never acted out as ther are alcoholics that have never committed a crime.

    So again what is your point.? What do we do with paedophiles?, we jail them if they offend but what if they don’t offend,? lock em up anyway.

    And once again paedophilia has nothing to do with this thread, this is about a couple wanting to go to sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ChardonnayGuy (1,231 comments) says:

    Whangarei and fundamentalist accomodation providers. How typical that it’s someone way out in the wopwops who’s ignorant about the Human Rights Act 1993 and its provisions. Which are these- it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation and numerous other grounds- race, age, disability, gender, disease status, political opinion, religious beliefs, marital status and family status- insofar as accomodation, employment and service provision are concerned. In this context, we are dealing with accomodation and service provision.

    1993. In other words, twenty years before the passage of the Marriage Equality Amendment Act in April 2013.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    “….Oh don’t be silly. Of course[beastality] it is shameful. Cruelty and power abuse will always be deemed shameful in a humane society…”

    It’s legal in Germany!

    The pro sexualists around the world are arguing for it…..not me!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    This accommodation was someone’s home.

    Yeah, but they chose to rent it out. Changes its status. I support your right not to invite gays to your house though – unless you are a hotelier of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    It’s [bestiality] legal in Germany!

    No it isn’t

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    “…..If you could show one point in my previous posts where I have made an incorrect claim about what the law says on this subject, you would have a point. But you can’t. So I suggest you take your own advice….”

    You are taking selected law that suits your arguement. Like I implied:

    Any business can under the current laws target a market segment: Homofacists.

    And they can all put signs out saying “Welcome homofacists”!

    It does not imply that ALL homos are facists either! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    @ Harriet

    And Denmark – A great example of where unsublimated sexual nihilism leads to.

    On the internet, several Danish animal owners openly advertise their services. The newspaper contacted several such individuals and was told that many of the animals have been engaged in this kind of activity for several years and that the animals crave the sexual stimulation. The newspaper found that the cost charged by the animal owners varied from DKK 500 to 1,000 (USD$85 to $170).

    http://www.icenews.is/2008/05/20/animal-brothels-legal-in-denmark/

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. duggledog (1,620 comments) says:

    The B & B owners have a right to have whoever they like under their roof I would have thought. Motel owners turn away Indians because they stink out the rooms with curry. Employers don’t employ Maoris because they’re Maori. Car buyers avoid buying cars off Pakistani or Middle Eastern car dealers.

    The fact is everyone practices discrimination every day in all aspects of our lives. If you say you don’t then you are a liar it’s the human story.
    I’ve got a mate who won’t park his flash BMW next to a dented people mover full of Polys in a supermarket car park, somebody call the human rights commission!

    What’s funny about this is that the couple running the B & B are in Northland where times are tough have actually done this, if you’re in the hospo industry you can’t be choosy. There goes another small business! You can’t eat principles

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Scott. There is a distinct difference between entertaining people in your home and an establishment with separate living quarters. There may be a grey area in practice but the concept is clear.

    The underlying problem is some unfortunate people have a congenital defect, something to do with hormones in the uterus and development of the brain. They do not become sexually mature, that is, do not copulate for pleasure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ChardonnayGuy (1,231 comments) says:

    And Harriet’s native Queensland, which had terrible problems with zoophilia in the nineteenth century, given the profuse number of inbred rural types that dominate that Australian state in particular. See…

    The Boggo Blog: “Unnaturally Offensive: Zoophilia in Queensland“ 20.09.2013: http://boggoroad.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/unnaturally-offensive-queensland.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck#

    I might actually be wrong, it may well be Denmark. I have read recently that it is legal in a European country.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay, I am simply trying to establish the principle that is being applied here. There seems to be a double standard at work and neither you nor anyone else seems able to resolve it. So far it looks like gays have “special” rights and that is not the legal position, in spite of what you try and claim.

    Such a political rube you don’t even know the difference between a right winger and a Conservative, or even a Republican and a Conservative.

    Red, this is NEW ZEALAND. There is no such thing as a “Republican” here in NEW ZEALAND. I really do not think your in any position to lecture me on politics. Your views are not right wing. They are authoritarian and intolerant. The very things most of us loathe about the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Michael (913 comments) says:

    I guess the owners don’t like money…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    The underlying problem is some unfortunate people have a congenital defect, something to do with hormones in the uterus and development of the brain. They do not become sexually mature, that is, do not copulate for pleasure.

    Dennis Horne, care to expand on that remarkable statement ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    I guess the owners don’t like money…

    That is what I take from this story :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. toms (209 comments) says:

    You know, if I were gay and I went to this lodge and had the owner tell me plainly that they are happy for us to stay but their religious convictions mean they were giving us a room with two single beds, I wouldn’t be over joyed but I would accept their right to have their opinion on their property. The thing I take away from this story is the complete lack of goodwill on one or both sides. The Lodge owners should have explained their position, apologised and done their utmost to make alternative accomodation arrangements if two single were not acceptable. In return, Jane Collison and Paula Knight should have then accepted the position of the lodge owners as a sincere one and not make a hullabaloo in the press. It is a dangerous thing when we start down the road to culture wars of the USA, where half the country loaths the other half and corruption is allowed to fester because you’d rather die than concede anything to you opponents. That country is stuck and going nowhere fast. Now I know discrimination is illegal. But the same-sex law is fresh and many people will take some time to adjust. Ramming social change down people’s throats will just make them truculent and bitter. A bit of goodwill and common sense all round is important at a personal level, after all we all live in the same country.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    “….And Harriet’s native Queensland,…’

    Talking of which – a whore several months ago was told by ‘ma & pa’ motel owners that she was to stop whoreing in the room – or leave.

    She then took her case to some discrimination court or tribunal, with the arguement “other people work in their rooms conducting business over the phone” – she won! And then she lost when the owners appealed!

    Their grounds were that they lived there, there children lived there, other guests and their children stayed there. And that whoreing was ‘making use of their chattels, namely, a bed and shower’ where as, other guests conducted reasonable business using a utility – a telephone.

    Other motels however, welcome whores and their business.

    In summary: Motels are private RESIDENCES, and are also businesses of VARIOUS sorts, and people should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of CUSTOM and personal FAMILY reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    + 1 Michael. Having friends who own motels / hotels etc, they are very clear on their preferences – gay couples over straight any day.

    Lesbian friends of mine borrowed my apartment one weekend for a quiet getaway together. Next time I got into that bed, given how friggen hot they both were, I had a quiet smile on my face :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Manolo (14,165 comments) says:

    The owners can deny accommodation to whoever they want: divas, prima-donnas, queers, crazies, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    So far it looks like gays have “special” rights and that is not the legal position, in spite of what you try and claim.

    Kea

    show me where gays have special rights please. Although Chardonnay sorta solved the whole thing with Human rights Act quote above

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The owners can deny accommodation to whoever they want: divas, prima-donnas, queers, crazies, etc

    course they can, you can also drive pissed , bet up your missus etc just don;t come whinging when the summons arrives

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. iMP (2,455 comments) says:

    “This law will not affect anyone else!” (Henare, Williamson, Auchinvole). Yeah Right. Stupid Mps.

    Case #2 two in the Humans Rights Tribunal in less than a month.
    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/no-room-at-the-gay-inn/

    I feel for this gay couple, it would not be nice to be turned away.  But that’s what happens when you “define” yourself, your humanity, on the basis of your sexual activity which is something people have very particular views about.  That has always been my main objective to the rainbow political agenda – I simply do not accept that sexual practice/appetite/lifestyle whatever you want to call it (“sexuality”) is any basis for a human classification.  This was the great error of National’s Katherine O’Regan – making “sexual preference” a category in the Human Rights Act. We are now reaping the litigious consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    PEB is on fire today!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    This seems pretty simple to me, if the booking was made online where they post term terms and conditions of

    A deposit of $30 is required on booking. The balance is paid on arrival.

    The full amount is payable if cancellation is within 48 hours of the booked date.

    (see https://apac.littlehotelier.com/properties/pilgrim-planet-whangarei )

    Then they had no right to say or do anything else, if this was a walk in then I think they should be able to turn people away for any reason whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. “Care to expand on that remarkable statement.”
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-in-the-w.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Two things about the Pilgrim: It’s booked up and the rooms have valve radios. Weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. frankdb (150 comments) says:

    About 10 years ago I was staying at my mums house in the South Island with my girlfriend with whom I lived with in AK, we were in our 30s.As we were not married not only were we not allowed to sleep in the same bed but were put into different rooms! her house , her rules, no worries.

    Also, would you want to be the person to sleep in the bed that the night before an act of sodomy had been performed in?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    There were early signs these sort of problems were coming. Firstly the changes to the bill excusing the clergy from marrying gay couples. I thought that was offensive and short sighted, nobody should need to be ‘excused’ for not doing what they don’t want to do or on the other hand doing what they want to do. Similarly, Louisa Wall being told by Ratana that she couldn’t marry in their church, predictably no problems over that – a simple acceptance by Wall and her associates. Now this up north. Whether or not I agree with the reasons for the couples decision I agree with their rights over their own property and business. At least part of 1.5% of the population appear to be pushing the envelope. I don’t know the details but would it have been so difficult for the lesbian couple to accept the decision of the owners of the motel rather than make it an issue. In commerce many customers simply vote with their feet. It seems the only choice of resolution being exercised is confrontation, what has happened to discretion and diplomacy? At least partly, as Williamson may now realise, a large part of the population feel pressured about gay marriage, confronting their so called ‘hypocrisy’ is failing to absorb that probably a ‘silent’ good number of people thought that the issue was over, yet now we appear to see what others made warnings about before the bill was passed – an inch turning into a mile.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. CNF (1 comment) says:

    I find it funny how those who with borderline schizophrenic beliefs wish to impose them on a fatherland which has never been culturally so.

    If you are of such strong convictions why don’t you go to South Africa or if you believe in a different sky father maybe Yemen.

    I do realize the fact that this is private enterprise and they should be free to express their ideology but as a majority we should have the right to eliminate them from our cultural.

    We will always be a socially liberal country with strong liberty and those who oppose such down to our very sexuality are shill for authoritarianism and should be removed from our civil society with force.

    I am not even a fan of homosexuals but I recognize they harm nobody and it’s likely as found in nature ( many species exhibit homosexuality ) though hypothalamus defects/mutations/nuro-diversity it’s out of their control.

    As long as one expresses a love of their fatherland they deserve equal rights. Sexuality is something private to a individual and need not effect his/hers national identity.

    Religion on the other land wishes to destroy our nationalism and install it’s own theocracy upon us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. kowtow (8,933 comments) says:

    This thread is about 2 people wanting a bed for the night.

    Could be rephrased as ;

    This thread is about the government over riding private property rights.

    It is actually about freedom.

    Human rights legislation is nothing less than a socialist Trojan Horse,and if you don’t believe me just look at what it has done to Britain.

    It is gathering steam here too. The Anglican church is currently in the dock. The outcome will be very interesting.

    Human rights legislation was enacted to control “Establishment ” judges (who were seen to be too conservative by the socialist movement)As those judges couldn’t be trusted to ensure socialist policy was enacted through the courts ,these clever socialists ensured it through legislation.Now of course the Judiciary have largely fallen under the progressive onslaught too.

    It’s now down to citizens to speak up,while we still can……..

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    show me where gays have special rights please.

    My pleasure Pauleastbay…

    You are suggesting that the lesbian couples wish to stay in the guesthouse should have preference over the religious beliefs, personal beliefs and property rights of the owners.

    The lesbian couple did not have any rights removed from them. They simply had to stay some place else. The guesthouse owners lost money and got have negative publicity. The only people who have lost anything are the guesthouse owners. I think we can call that a draw.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paulus (2,707 comments) says:

    Under Sharia Law there is no homosexuality or adultery.
    Try it and see what happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    At some point personal preferences get trumped by the desire to make money. It might be worth approaching the owners in 5 years time. Perhaps by then “deep personal reflection” might have lead them to believe that yes, they can take the customer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. wiseowl (974 comments) says:

    Dead right KT.
    Little by little, bit by bit, they chip away.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    I agree that they should be upfront about it on their promotional material if this is their policy. But two things come to mind:

    1. They are not refusing couples accommodation, so cannot be claimed to have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. They are just laying down terms of accommodation, which they are within their rights to do. So no real discrimination is occuring at first glance. But…

    2. Do they do this with unmarried straight couples? I hope so, in order that they be consistent with Christian morality. Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

    Frankly, if you are not prepared for complete strangers to have sex on your premises, you shouldn’t be running a B&B in the first place. I think the couple are milking this too much, but I also think the owners are in the wrong business to make moral judgments on those who don’t share their beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kea

    You havn’t shown me where gays have special rights. You brought it up .

    Kowtow

    This thread is about the government over riding private property rights.

    No its not. the motel is a conditional public place like a bar or cinema or a shop. They are a business.

    They can turn customers away but just be prepared for the backlash or prosecution.

    Sorry you are a catholic piss off, sorry you’re a hori piss off, sorry you have kids piss off. I know these two have milked this but the business is obviously too stupid to be able to handle the situation and they deserve the heat. And I just love seeing the intolerance coming to the fore here. Its not bigitory or anything other than intolerance, its why I loathe organized relegion too much intolerance

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Redbaiter (10,389 comments) says:

    “I also think the owners are in the wrong business to make moral judgments on those who don’t share their beliefs.”

    So let’s hit the bastards with big powerful gummint. That’ll teach the redneck scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. GK (71 comments) says:

    When I was running a hospitality business I never had to throw anyone out even though I came close. The Red Line was if guests upset other guests with their behavior. When you have families staying and out of a double room comes two guys, you can see the smirks and disapproval. Not everyone likes the idea of knowing that the bed they slept in has had an away game for gays going on in it before they got there. The so called pink dollar is a very very small part of business. When a Colorado
    city declined its facilities to a gay convention, the pink lobby shrieked blue murder. That place was going to go broke, boycotts blah, blah. The upshot was increased business as the other 95% of the population decided it was a really cool place to go.

    Pilgrim Planet Lodge should increase its turnover considerably

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    N-NZ… excellent thoughts.

    I do not understand the media/blog pre-occupation with homosexuality.
    The fact that the MSM, and this blog, think this is an important issue is an adverse reflection on them – not the B&B owners.

    What someone does in private is their business, provided what they do is not against statute law, or offend public order or decency;.

    Homosexual couples may do they please.

    But if I owned that business, it would be mine to operate as I please.

    I would tell any HRC Nazi to piss off ….and let them do their worst.

    Wall, Hague, Finlayson and the other homosexuals might just find that the passive majority have gone over the tipping point.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. mandk (1,028 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck @ 9.33
    DPF has already told us what is next on the liberal agenda.
    It’s geronticide (a.k.a. euthanasia), because killing pre-born babies (a.k.a. abortion) is too easy.
    The liberals pose as guardians of human rights, but they have a peculiar and nasty desire to kill other human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay, I am testing the principle here. If you really believe what your saying you will be ok with the following, as the principle is the same.

    1. A group from NAMBLA would be welcome to stay there.

    2. A brutal Muslim cleric who routinely orders the lashing and stoning of young rape victims, according to the laws of his country and who treats women like dirt and is legally married to a 13 year old whom he brings with him.

    (And remember, no law has been broken in any of the above examples and do not pretend it has)

    So would you be ok with the people above staying at your house and if not explain why ? without contradicting the principle you have already established.

    It appears what you are doing is attempting to use law to remove peoples right to choose and practice their beliefs. It has to be said that those who opposed the gay marriage bill said this would happen. You claimed that no church would be forced to accept gays, but we see that was a lie also.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    @ mandk

    Yes. As I’ve always maintained, liberalism is a death cult built on the four pillars of abortion, euthanasia, sodomy & drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Imp#

    “….This was the great error of National’s Katherine O’Regan – making “sexual preference” a category in the Human Rights Act. We are now reaping the litigious consequences….’

    That’s true, and it also demeans gays as it seperates them from ‘personhood’ – it’s as though O’reagan thought gays were not ‘complete’ or ‘fully human’ and in need of ‘support’.
    And that seperation of personhood, IMHO, is the very reason gays suffer from drugs and mental illnesses ect.
    And now that they have that ‘seperation’ enshrined in NZ law, gives them an inferior ‘identity’, which leads me to believe that their personal problems won’t get better anytime soon.
    With the socialists playing ‘identity politics’, gays will receive more healthcare assistance ect which will only re-enforce their ‘perceived inferiority’ in the publics mind – and probably their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I have quite often shared a double bed with a fishing or flying “mate”, when there were no singles available. No one blinks or turns his back…

    I suspect these two homosexuals made a point of letting it be known they were homosexuals, and they are trying to score some more points.

    Dildo diddle-de-dee
    I want to play with thee
    Show me your hairy cunt
    So I can “manfully” to it front
    And on your face do my wee.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    “…..its why I loathe organized relegion too much intolerance….’

    Go homofacism!

    Marriage was a label that IDENTIFIED a hetrosexual couple – the only, and most important label we had.

    And it was taken away from us on the pretext that gays were the equivilent to us. Really? Then we will soon no longer here the words ‘gay’ & ‘gay community’ then won’t we PEB?

    But we won’t – your type will keep referring to ‘gays’ which can then only mean HOMOFACISM!

    “Equality’ was never ever the aim, but rather, changing society over to YOUR intolerant religion! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    I heard the owner of the property interviewed on radio yesterday. He said that had been working with the gay community to try to word their advertising so it said what they wanted but did not offend and obviously did not break any law.
    I think that is a very practical thing to do. I hope they achieve their objective.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    @Ross12

    What station and what time did you hear the interview?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    “……I have quite often shared a double bed with a fishing or flying “mate”, when there were no singles available…’

    Truthfully Denis, I noticed a couple of days earlier this week that both you and Judith weren’t commenting!

    Would either of you care to give us a comment now? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    So-called property rights… A conservative obsession which seems to reject any notion that these rights should be balanced against other rights. If someone travels a long way only to find out that their booking discriminates against them on the basis of their skin colour or their religious beliefs or their sexuality they have been put out. They have been impinged upon in terms of effort, time, fuel, money etc. But this counts for nothing apparently. Property trumps every other consideration.

    At a minimum they should have to clearly point out to potential customers that they are bigots (or whatever euphemism they choose to convey that point). On the other hand perhaps the social poison that such discrimination represents should be considered as objectionable as selling liquor to underage children. Perhaps you can’t do whatever you like with your property. Perhaps you can’t sell food with poor hygiene standards. Perhaps you can’t run a business selling P to willing buyers. Perhaps the selling of goods and services to the public entails some social responsibility whatever your personal beliefs happen to be. Maybe property rights aren’t absolute.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Harriet. The more the merrier, Harriet, I’m up for it ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. KevinH (1,253 comments) says:

    The website for this B&B is informative and well done, illustrating a modern comfortable B&B that I would be happy to stay in when in Whangarei; however the website doesn’t specify the type of guests who are not welcome:

    http://www.pilgrimplanet.co.nz/index.html

    It would be interesting to discover what reaction you would get from the owners if you were an interracial couple.
    The owners of this B&B, by declining the lesbian couple, committed the ultimate business folly, and that is to turn away business, a rather stupid thing to do that is supported by an equally large number of stupid people on this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. kowtow (8,933 comments) says:

    If one says they think “equality” should be legislated for by the government ,then one needs to reflect very carefully on the nature and extent of “equality”.

    Many socialists (progressives) think intergenerational inequality is a major problem and should be eliminated ,thereby making us all “equal”.

    The way to achieve that is 100 % death duties (along with any number of other taxes across your lifetime).

    So if you believe in “equality” you are really a fucken socialist who wants to steal my money.Cos that’s what it is ,legislated theft of private property and the rights that go with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea (4,084) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 11:30 am
    Pauleastbay, I am testing the principle here. If you really believe what your saying you will be ok with the following, as the principle is the same.

    1. A group from NAMBLA would be welcome to stay there.

    If you are not aware, sexuality as defined by the HRA does not include paedophilia. Some would argue that discrimination against them would be justified. Are you arguing a contrary POV? Do you, as a matter of “principle”, consider paedophilia equivalent to a homosexual orientation?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Nukuleka (399 comments) says:

    Most NZers will applaud the actions of the owners of the Pilgrim Planet Lodge. It is their home and they have every right to determine who will and who will not stay there. Seeking to make fun of the owner because of the reference to sodomy is typical of the clever clogs attitude of the ‘let everything hang out brigade’ who seek to ridicule anyone and everything they disagree with. Presumably with a dildo and a compliant anus even sodomy is possible for dykes. After all, women can do anything.

    This lesbian couple are exactly the type who have foisted same sex marriage onto an unsuspecting, naive parliament. Nothing to do with ‘equality’ but everything to do with destroying the institution of marriage by rendering it totally meaningless. I love my dog, my dog loves me= marriage equality. Why not?

    Business will boom for the Pilgrim Planet Lodge. All power to them!

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10882942

    The trouble began when Ms Collison reported to the lodge’s office, and offered Ms Knights’ business card to Mrs Ruskin to confirm the booking.

    Why didn’t the woman who booked go to the office? Why the other one? Trying to rub the owner’s nose in it?

    If wanting that particular accommodation was paramount, do what unmarried couples used to do in the old days, be economical with the truth. Let’s be honest, Paula could pass as Paul. These two are making a point. ‘Twas all predicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    Also, would you want to be the person to sleep in the bed that the night before an act of sodomy had been performed in?

    If you’ve ever stayed in a hotel or motel, it’s entirely possible you have been that person.

    It does not imply that ALL homos are facists either!

    I figured it was a typo the first time, but apparently not. Would it kill you to learn how to spell fascist? Once you’ve done that, we can get to your gratuitous misuse of the term fascist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Can anyone explain. To me the link between homosexuality and communism? I’m buggered if I can see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “I’m buggered if I can see it.”

    Heh, I see what you did there.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    If you are not aware, sexuality as defined by the HRA does not include paedophilia. Some would argue that discrimination against them would be justified. Are you arguing a contrary POV? Do you, as a matter of “principle”, consider paedophilia equivalent to a homosexual orientation?

    1. I do not care what the HRA thinks.

    2. It is a sexual orientation.

    3. Some would indeed argue that discrimination is justified (so would I) but it is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation no matter how much you try to deny it.

    4. Not sure where your going with the last question. I suspect you are trying to build a strawman to attack in an attempt to discredit me as you are unable to address the real point I am making.

    So-called property rights… A conservative obsession which seems to reject any notion that these rights should be balanced against other rights.

    So-called property gay rights… A conservative socialist obsession which seems to reject any notion that these rights should be balanced against other rights.

    There fixed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fox (206 comments) says:

    Wow, 116 comments already.
    Nothing like rolling out of bed on a lazy Saturday morning, and immediately launching into a robust online debate on sodomy. :D

    On a more serious note, if they don’t welcome gay couples, why don’t they simply state so in their advertising? (although I’m guessing that’s now been taken care of courtesy of the media).

    Surely that’s more sensible than waiting until couples have shown up on the doorstep, and then sending them 50km down the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Can anyone explain. To me the link between homosexuality and communism?

    Ask Red.

    He is convinced I am a communist for supporting gay marriage. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    I’m amazed that so many who normally demand little interference from government in their daily lives, are OK with attempts to place limits on what goes on between a gay/lesbian couple.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    NO BLACKS
    NO DOGS
    NO IRISH

    That’s what some of the signs outside Hotels and Boarding Houses used to say in London in the 1960s. Is this really what you people want to return to?

    The Lodge owner is required to comply with all New Zealand laws. Should they also be exempted from complying with the Building Code?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    I stayed in a guest house in Remuera Road some years ago that was a bit weird.

    It was all very flash when you arrived and signed in and paid your money. Then you started noticing the little notes on the walls everywhere. Please do not use this light as it annoys someone. Please do not shower for more than 5 minutes. Please shut this door quietly. Please consider other guests when using teaspoons.

    The proprietors were ancient even then so they are probably dead now, but if they are still going I bet there is a new little note on the end of the beds “no sodomy please.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled “Communist Goals for Taking Over America.” It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed related to sexual and family matters:

    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

    40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

    All of the notable left-wing thinkers such as Gramsci, Marcuse & Lukacs understood that blanket socialism could not be imposed on the West until the two main bulwarks to it were eliminated . . the church and the traditional family. Oh, how far down that road we have traveled.

    The entire list is here: http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm
    It’s not too difficult to see how many of those bullet points have been done and dusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, any comment to make on the rights of the people who own the property ?

    Maybe they should be exempted from the building code as you suggest. You seem to think they have no legal rights over their property anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird — it was Newstalk ZB sometime on Friday morning –can’t remember the exact time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    If this were a lodge for lesbian women you could be sure of two things:

    1. No man would be allowed to stay there.

    2. The media would not run the story.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    A place of healing and rest for women
    Women Only Bed and Breakfast

    Retreats
    If you’re feeling empty, come and be embraced and nurtured. Women nurture from overflow, and as a woman, wife, mother, career woman, the one thing we all have in common is that we spend a large part of our lives nurturing others.
    Retreats Ethos
    What happens when your well runs dry? If you’re familiar with that feeling, then you need to take some time to just stop, relax, release and be nurtured.
    Contact: Beverly Holt
    Address: Marine Parade North Piha,
    Auckland New Zealand
    Phone: 64-9-812 8775
    Fax: 64-9-812 8775
    Email: pihabevholt@clear.net.nz
    Retreats Weblink: http://www.tewahiora.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Urban Redneck

    Do you actually know who authored the list you just posted?

    It came from the febrile imagination of the Mormon philosopher Cleon Skousen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleon_Skousen

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Squirting women tend to mess the sheets more than one ejaculating man so I can see the point of the owners objection.

    Still one would hope that plastic mattress covers and regular laundry would be part of any accomodation owners health and safety plan! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled “Communist Goals for Taking Over America.”

    Got a source that isn’t obviously batshit insane?

    I don’t recall the USSR being particularly fond of irons.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Women Travellers

    The following is a list of women only tours, retreats and accommodation (female only dormitories in hostels and one women only guest house). There’s also links to some women specific travel books and websites. Let’s support our sisters, many of them are doin’ it for themselves …..

    http://www.thecuriouskiwi.co.nz/women_travellers.html

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. wrightingright (145 comments) says:

    http://www.pilgrimplanet.co.nz/

    Is basically a big house, only five bedrooms available.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Many a successful knocking shop has been run with less than five bedrooms! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    The owners choose to operate a business that interacts with the public.

    If they don’t want to abide by the laws the regulate accommodation providers, then they should choose to run another type of business that doesn’t conflict with their personal beliefs.

    Property rights aren’t absolute.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    @Kea that is actually an interesting point, I wonder if the same provisions that AGeddis referred to also permit discrimination on the basis of sex (if the owners use the lodge as their residence).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    “Property rights aren’t absolute.”

    We will of course all discover this to be very true when AussieGinga and ForgotMeAccount get their nasty, ugly, little hands on the levers of power! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Homosexual relations were illegal in the USSR and were only legalized in 1993.

    So much for pink pinkos.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    What no outrage over the revelation there are women only guesthouses ! That tells me all I need to know about those objecting to that lesbian couple being turned away.

    I am very liberal on gay issues, but I loathe the dishonesty of many who speak up in defense of gays. Most of them are demanding preference be given to gay rights over the rights of others. They are also liars. They are not at all concerned about “rights”, they are concerned about special rights for some selected groups only. Straight men are not part of that selected group.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Tom Jackson

    Stop introducing facts into the discussion.

    It makes the people arguing against you appear stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. frankdb (150 comments) says:

    Typical Lezzies overstating the facts and bending the truth!

    “They eventually found accommodation 50 kilometres away.”

    Where as Waipu Cove is in fact 48.2 km from The Pilgrim Planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, Tom is breaking out the Red Herrings and Strawmen, in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from his appalling lack of intellectual honesty and hypocrisy. No doubt you will join him.

    Or are you “outraged” & “offended” over the women only guesthouses ?

    Yeah right !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Its all very funny.

    I traveled a great deal with a female friend when we were ‘broke’ but free. We frequently shared a bed, too broke to have separate rooms and worked out that double bed rooms were often cheaper that twin.

    I suppose if we were to repeat that process now, we’d be shunned – apparently sharing a bed also implies sexual goings on.

    How pathetic some people are. I do wonder though, how many married men turning up with someone else’s wife they may have rented the bed too?

    Having said that, my business, I say who enters and who doesn’t – hence most of you wouldn’t get a room based on your political sway – :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “I am very liberal on gay issues, but I loathe the dishonesty of many who speak up in defense of gays. Most of them are demanding preference be given to gay rights over the rights of others. They are also liars. They are not at all concerned about “rights”, they are concerned about special rights for some selected groups only. Straight men are not part of that selected group.”

    ————————-

    I’m really sorry to tell you that straight men can’t be lesbians. So no – you cannot be a part of that “selected group”.

    Now please tell us about these “special rights” that gays are demanding? Is it the right to be treated like any other human being? The right not to be refused service? Both of these rights seem very reasonable to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Why am I a hypocrite? I haven’t expressed an opinion on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    “Where as Waipu Cove is in fact 48.2 km from The Pilgrim Planet.”

    Anywhere north of Paekakariki is at least a million miles away from Dying Wellington! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump (619) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    @Kea

    The owners choose to operate a business that interacts with the public.

    If they don’t want to abide by the laws the regulate accommodation providers, then they should choose to run another type of business that doesn’t conflict with their personal beliefs.

    Property rights aren’t absolute.

    Bullshit

    A place of healing and rest for women
    Women Only Bed and Breakfast

    Retreats
    If you’re feeling empty, come and be embraced and nurtured. Women nurture from overflow, and as a woman, wife, mother, career woman, the one thing we all have in common is that we spend a large part of our lives nurturing others.
    Retreats Ethos
    What happens when your well runs dry? If you’re familiar with that feeling, then you need to take some time to just stop, relax, release and be nurtured.
    Contact: Beverly Holt
    Address: Marine Parade North Piha,
    Auckland New Zealand
    Phone: 64-9-812 8775
    Fax: 64-9-812 8775
    Email: pihabevholt@clear.net.nz
    Retreats Weblink: http://www.tewahiora.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    @Kea evidently you missed my post. I also wonder about gender-discriminatory businesses (or at least ones that are permitted to discriminate against one gender only).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    “Having said that, my business, I say who enters and who doesn’t – hence most of you wouldn’t get a room based on your political sway – :-)”

    All of us would prefer the manger down the road rather than stay at your Inn Judith! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Manolo (14,165 comments) says:

    Really? Wouldn’t you rent me a quiet room, Judith?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    NO DOGS

    NO IRISH

    NO BLACKS

    NO STRAIGHT MEN

    Accommodation on this gaystay.co.nz site is provided by gay, lesbian or transgendered people. Some host only women or men. http://www.gaystay.co.nz/

    The Big Gay Out in Abel Tasman National Park, this gay and lesbian retreat http://www.womentravelnz.com/index.php/tag/lesbian/

    Rotorua gay accommodation and lesbian accommodation includes a range of accommodation options, such as gay hotels and other gay accommodation. Relax in a friendly environment with like-minded people, in Rotorua gay accommodation.http://www.tourism.net.nz/region/rotorua/accommodation/gay-and-lesbian-accommodation

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    From lesbians and sodomy in Whangarei to the naked communist. Urban Redneck’s link makes it out as “The Communist Takeover Of America – 45 Declared Goals”, but it isn’t that, it’s from The Naked Communist which is “a book written in 1958 by conservative United States author and faith-based political theorist Cleon Skousen”.

    The book posits and seeks to describe a geopolitical strategy by which the Marxist–Leninist Soviet Union was attempting to overcome and control all the governments of the world that were not members of the Communist bloc. At the time that the book was published, during the Cold War, fear of communism was common among people in non-communist nations.

    The list of communist goals contained in the book was read into the Congressional Record by U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida, on January 10, 1963

    And the author:

    … American author, conservative American constitutionalist and faith-based political theorist. He was also a prolific popularizer among Latter-day Saints (Mormons) (LDS) of their theology. A notable anti-communist and supporter of the John Birch Society.

    Skousen founded a group called the All-American Society, which Time magazine described in 1961 as an “exemplar of the far-right ultras.

    In other words, it is made up attack crap.

    In The Naked Communist he enlivened a survey of the worldwide leftist threat with outlandish claims, writing that F.D.R.’s adviser Harry Hopkins had treasonously delivered to the Soviets a large supply of uranium, and that the Russians built the first Sputnik with plans stolen from the United States.

    A year before Richard Condon’s novel The Manchurian Candidate appeared, Skousen announced that the Communists were creating “a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their masters.”

    A later book, The Naked Capitalist, decried the Ivy League Establishment, who, through the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Rockefeller Foundation, formed “the world’s secret power structure.” The conspiracy had begun, Skousen wrote, when reformers like the wealthy banker Edward M. (Colonel) House, a close adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, helped put into place the Federal Reserve and the graduated income tax.

    In 1981, he produced The 5,000 Year Leap, a treatise that assembles selective quotations and groundless assertions to claim that the U.S. Constitution is rooted not in the Enlightenment but in the Bible, and that the framers believed in minimal central government.

    — Sean Wilentz, Princeton University historian

    Funny that the list is still being believed and used. Communism crapped out decades ago.

    Item 2 on the list:
    2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

    If only the US had escalated the cold war into an atomic war, that would have buggered the lesbians, wouldn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I have no problem with men only or women only hostels. I also have no problem with religious hostels, or hostels for minorities. In all these cases a reason that isn’t obviously immoral justifies it. I don’t like the idea of hostels that exclude people purely for reasons of race or orientation.

    Case in point. We have women only gyms because a lot of men behave badly in mixed gyms. If that stopped, there would be no good reason for women only gyms.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Folk interested in sheep can come and spend a weekend at Johnboys woolpackers accomodation. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    The “women only” lodges that you linked are quite possible on shaky ground from a legal perspective. But do you understand why nobody cares enough to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission? It is because those businesses openly advertise themselves as “women only”.

    The Pilgrim Planet Lodge makes no such representation in its advertising. Guests only discover they are not welcome when they arrive.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    adze, remarkably those who are so vocal about the rights of gays have absolutely nothing to say about discrimination against straight people, especially against straight men.

    I have to make a conscious effort to remind myself that it is not the fault of gays that so many hypocrites, fakes and liars support them.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    @Tom ” In all these cases a reason that isn’t obviously immoral justifies it. ”

    That is only an assumption though, Tom. And I’m not sure that an assumption that a particular group will behave badly is sufficiently “moral” to discriminate against an entire gender. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a stricter rules for conduct; no lewd, aggressive or noisy behaviour?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Get a life

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    But do you understand why nobody cares enough to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission? It is because those businesses openly advertise themselves as “women only”.

    Bullshit.

    If a guesthouse advertised itself as being for “straight” people, there would be hell to pay. The HRC would be all over it. The media would go nuts.

    How stupid do you think people are ? It is really quite insulting to other readers intelligence that you would say that.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    There is no discrimination because straight men don’t want to stay at “women only” or “gay” lodges.

    Or do they?

    Please feel free to link some evidence if you have it. I’d certainly be intrigued if you could provide an actual real-life example of a straight man making a booking and being turned away.

    If the discrimination is as real as you seem to think it is, you should have no problems in providing us with examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Viking2 (11,668 comments) says:

    gump (619) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Property rights aren’t absolute.
    ====
    More is the pity.

    Its the bloody socialists that infest this otherwise great country. Sooner we export them else where the better.

    And they can take the ginga’s, whingers and bank skimmers with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “How stupid do you think people are ?”

    ——————–

    That depends. Are we talking about you or somebody else?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea (4,093) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    1. I do not care what the HRA thinks.

    2. It is a sexual orientation.

    I agree it is a sexual orientation although it is relevant to note that the legal definition has a precise and contrary meaning.

    3. Some would indeed argue that discrimination is justified (so would I) but it is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation no matter how much you try to deny it.

    I’m not denying it. But it does not follow that because it is justified in respect of paedophiles that it is necessarily justified in respect of homosexuals. One is not the other even if they may both be regarded as “orientations”.

    4. Not sure where your going with the last question. I suspect you are trying to build a strawman to attack in an attempt to discredit me as you are unable to address the real point I am making.

    No I’m attempting to point out that the distinction between one type of “orientation” and another type is reasonable and justified and the fact that the law treats one orientation differently than the other does not demonstrate that the law is wrong.

    So-called property gay rights… A conservative socialist obsession which seems to reject any notion that these rights should be balanced against other rights.

    It isn’t about “gay rights” it is about *human* rights. The same would hold true if the discrimination were on the basis of religious belief or race. These people have been put out. They have been inconvenienced against their will, they have been imposed upon.

    Social interaction comes with certain conventions that reflects the mores of society in general. For instance you can’t walk through your local Westfield in the nude. This is despite the fact that you are imposing nothing upon others except visual pollution which itself is simply a matter of subjective standards. That is to say an obese lady can wear tight pants which are being sucked up her buttcrack (aka “hungry bum”) but you can’t walk around with your willy hanging out even though arguably they are both unsightly.

    Similarly society has deemed that when selling goods and services to the public certain classes of people shouldn’t be discriminated against. They shouldn’t be excluded from society in this way. Society has deemed that discrimination against these groups is unjustified and unreasonable. When weighing up the right of these people to be free from discrimination against the right of individuals to their property society has determined that personal use of personal property outweighs the right to be free of discrimination. But when using personal property to provide a public service the public nature of that property justifies imposing the social conventions that govern public social interaction. The distinction between public and private use of one’s own property appears to me a reasonable and principled way of balancing the rights of certain groups not to face public discrimination whilst also protecting the personal property rights of individuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump (622) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    @Kea

    There is no discrimination because straight men don’t want to stay at “women only” or “gay” lodges.

    Or do they?

    Please feel free to link some evidence if you have it. I’d certainly be intrigued if you could provide an actual real-life example of a straight man making a booking and being turned away.

    The “evidence” is it is illegal to discriminate on gender or sexuality. You made the claim that “straight men don’t want to stay at “women only” or “gay” lodges.” Now you back it up …

    You suggest that the fact they openly advertise their discrimination makes it ok. It is hard to be polite about your two faced hypocrisy, but I will try.

    According to YOU, this is ok:

    NO NIGGERS

    NO QUEERS

    NO CHINESE

    NO ATHEISTS

    All that is ok with gump, because:

    1. They advertised it.

    2. Those people listed do not want to stay there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. duggledog (1,620 comments) says:

    Johnboy, your post at 1.26 was appalling and you’re now on notice to stop being a naughty boy.

    I will bet dollars to donuts the red emergency phone went off in John Campbell’s bedroom when his team learned of this terrible bweach of gay rights.

    He will have climbed out of bed, put on his Super John costume, slid down the greasy pole (poll?) into Campbell Live HQ where right now they will all be planning a full scale assault on this Calvinist B & B.

    I expect to see a reporter quivering with indignation on the B & B’s doorstep at 7 pm Monday!!! Lead Item!!! A gay Basher!!! Any takers on this bet?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Clearly Mr and Mrs Ruskin don’t take it up the bum. They are just small minded folk, I hope their business fails. Who likes staying in these home stay situations anyway, with their little china cups and antimacassars on the chairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    It isn’t about “gay rights” it is about *human* rights.

    Liar.

    You are only concerned about gay humans having special rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    I would suggest that the sign you suggested “NO NIGGERS, NO QUEERS, NO CHINESE, NO ATHEISTS” would draw complaints rather quickly.

    And that is the key point that you seem determined to ignore.

    The Human Rights Commission can only responds to complaints. Nobody has ever complained about “women only” and “gay only” lodges.

    If you feel strongly about the matter, you should be prepared to put your name into the public arena and lodge a complaint with the HRC. What’s stopping you??

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Weihana, you also totally destroy your own position:

    “Social interaction comes with certain conventions that reflects the mores of society in general. For instance you can’t walk through your local Westfield in the nude. This is despite the fact that you are imposing nothing upon others except visual pollution which itself is simply a matter of subjective standards.”

    “But when using personal property to provide a public service the public nature of that property justifies imposing the social conventions that govern public social interaction. ”

    That is a powerful argument to support guesthouse owners not allowing homos to use their rooms. They are simply enforcing societies conventions. And like you said, this can apply even if the homos are imposing nothing upon others. The fact you over looked this obvious point shows to me how one eyed you are about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    gay humans having special rights.

    Kea

    I’m still waiting for these specail rights you keep mentioning.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    The HRC website seems to clarify the point somewhat; at least it appears to be inclusive in the approach to exemptions.

    Some accommodation does limit itself to certain groups – is this lawful?
    Accommodation in a hostel or institution such as a hospital, club, school, university, religious institution or retirement village is an exception to the general prohibition against unlawful discrimination. In these situations, accommodation may be made available for people of the same sex, marital status, or religious or ethical belief, or for those with a particular disability or in a particular age group. This is not breaking the law.

    http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/faqs/accommodation-property-landlords-and-human-rights

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. transmogrifier (523 comments) says:

    Private businesses should be able to choose their customers/employees as they see fit. Customers/employees also have the right to boycott or criticize the actions of private businesses.

    As long as the government stays the hell out of it, what’s the problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, the only thing I “feel strongly” about is honesty and tolerance of others ways.

    You show no signs of either. You pretend to be all bothered about rights, but really you are not at all. You want your special group to be exempt from respecting others rights. I presented you examples of clear discrimination in guesthouses and you proceeded to make excuses for it in a way that undermined your entire previous argument.

    In the grown up real world it is not always possible to do what you want. There are times when rights come into conflict with the rights of others. You think the rights of homos should always be given preference, but provide no logical consistent argument as to why.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea,

    Societies conventions are prescribed by legislation, not the personal opinions of a guesthouse owner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    “Kea

    I’m still waiting for these specail rights you keep mentioning.”

    Sure Pauleastbay, just as soon as I figure out how to dumb it down enough for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Societies conventions are prescribed by legislation, not the personal opinions of a guesthouse owner.

    Bullshit. They are called laws not conventions. They are totally different things. Your not stupid and you know that what you wrote is a try on. Your getting desperate.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump (624) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    @Kea

    There is no discrimination because straight men lesbians don’t want to stay at “women straight only” or “gaystraight” lodges.

    Anyone smart enough to spot the hypocrite ?

    Here is another one: But do you understand why nobody cares enough to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission? It is because those businesses openly advertise themselves as “women straight only”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “You think the rights of homos should always be given preference”

    ——————–

    No – I do not think they should be given preference.

    I think that gay people should be treated the same way as everybody else. And that’s exactly the problem with what has just happened in Whangarei – the Lesbian couple were not treated in the same way as the other guests.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    No gump. You are ok with discrimination, provided that:

    1. They openly advertise their bigotry.

    2. If you can make the assumption that the targeted group don’t want to stay there anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea,

    Nobody’s perfect, but please please please… You are is abbreviated You’re not “your”. :)

    They are laws which reflect societal conventions by virtue of being instituted in a democratic society.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “There is no discrimination because lesbians don’t want to stay at “straight only” or “straight” lodges.

    Anyone smart enough to spot the hypocrite ?

    ——————-

    Lesbians *do* want to stay at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge. That is the problem here, and the reason why a complaint was laid with the HRC.

    I encourage you to put your name forward and lay a complaint with the HRC against “women’s only” or “gay exclusive” lodges if you truly feel that those businesses are acting in a discriminatory fashion.

    The HRC can only investigate when a complaint has been made. So what’s stopping you??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    New Guinness world record…….

    Two old lezzie slappers get 180 comments in 7 hours on Kiwiblog!!!!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Next week on KB…….

    “Should we start calling African/Americans n*****s again? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Nukuleka (399 comments) says:

    It doesn’t take long courtesy of Google to locate plenty of “lesbians only”, “wimmin only” guest houses scattered throughout NZ and the world. It is obviously fine to discriminate in favour of lesbians and against heterosexuals. We don’t see any articles in the Herald about these, of course. Or complaints to the Human Rights Commission.

    Maybe I’ll take my lady wife and the two kids off to one of these ‘lesbian only’ retreats and see what kind of a warm welcome we receive. The sight of a man, woman and two kids as ‘family’ is likely to put the dykes off their breakfast for life. Might be fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Sure Pauleastbay, just as soon as I figure out how to dumb it down enough for you

    I’m not that thick, you’ve taken all fucking day and havn’t come up with anything yet.

    The corner is just behind you and a lot of paint in front of you, time for some mental nibbleness. Repeating yourself is not answering
    and can you speed it up I’m leaving for the park at 6.30.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, it is not me who is pretending to be offended by this minor incident. It is insincere people like you. I have no problem with people choosing who stays on their property. You do, but only if the excluded group is gay !

    Weihana, is reduced to correcting my spelling.

    Neither of you have established any principle that can be applied more generally. If you think gays should have special rights just say so. Maybe you think they have been discriminated against so long we owe them a favour ? All I ask is a bit of honesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea (4,104) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    No gump. You are ok with discrimination, provided that:

    1. They openly advertise their bigotry.

    2. If you can make the assumption that the targeted group don’t want to stay there anyway.

    Without speaking for others, I’m okay with tolerating discrimination so long as either the discrimination is primarily in a personal capacity (e.g. acquiring flatmates) and/or the discrimination is reasonable in the context of the goods or services provided. So for instance, religious services can discriminate against things which go against their beliefs. Or a gay sauna can discriminate against non-gays. Or accommodation provided for battered wives can discriminate against men.

    The thing to remember is that these things are highly context dependent. Essentially we aim to treat different classes of people equally unless there is a justification to treat them otherwise. What counts as a justification is context dependent and also somewhat subjective in terms of generally accepted social mores.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea (4,105) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Weihana, is reduced to correcting my spelling.

    As opposed to your highly intelligent rebuttal:

    “Liar!”

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    These sentiments have no doubt already been laid out, but I’m trying to think what is worse:

    1. Discriminating against someone based on a deeply held personal beliefs; or

    2. Trashing someone’s property rights and exposing them to potential civil legal action (which would probably be criminal action if parties like the Greens / Labour had their way) because of their deeply held personal beliefs.

    Yup, no doubt in my mind that 2. is far, far more concerning than 1. will ever be. It really does scare me that most KB residents will no doubt think otherwise. So our society is now so enlightened and “free” that we have government departments suing / prosecuting / penalising people for their beliefs and thoughts, and who they wish to let on to their private / business premises? Do I have this straight?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Weihana, so you have no problem with discrimination against gays if it is openly advertised, or if you claim they “don’t want to stay there anyway” as gump has suggested ?

    Do you consider it reasonable to have exclusive gay retreats ?

    Your [note spelling] attempts to obscure your hypocrisy and double standards are getting more and more convoluted and wordy and less and less credible.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay, I have provided evidence of exclusive gay guesthouses and women only places. Those who pretended to be upset about a couple of lesbians not feeling welcome, had nothing to say about that. Special rights for gays, no matter how much shit you spout, red herrings you throw, or strawmen you burn.

    Enjoy the game you fag-enabler you ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Kea (4,106) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    Weihana, so you have no problem with discrimination against gays if it is openly advertised, or if you claim they “don’t want to stay there anyway” as gump has suggested ?

    Not enough context given. Maybe yes, maybe no. Is the accommodation provided in a personal capacity (e.g. flatmates) or a public capacity (e.g. a motel)? What is the particular service provided? Is the good or service specifically relevant to the discrimination? e.g. is the service provided characterized primarily as a “religious service” and therefore is it necessary to discriminate against gays in accordance with the religion’s belief system?

    Do you consider it reasonable to have exclusive gay retreats ?

    Would depend on the nature of the retreat. If it is just normal accommodation then no I don’t think it is acceptable. However, if the retreat is for “accommodation” in the same way as a gay sauna is for relaxation, then the discrimination would appear reasonable.

    Your [note spelling] attempts to obscure your hypocrisy and double standards are getting more and more convoluted and wordy and less and less credible.

    Thanks for that assessment. But I’m really just trying to help. :)

    Anyway, I should take my leave now… lovely afternoon not to be wasted on Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Lawrence Hakiwai (117 comments) says:

    I remember when this was a political blog.

    Anyone else bored with the relentless social-engineering propaganda?

    Isn’t that what the right used to oppose?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Kacang (36 comments) says:

    The accommodation should be advertised as “Bigots most welcome”

    Then those filthy communist slutty sodomists would have known not to turn up to soil the doorstep (or sheets)

    And the world be be a safer place.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “gump, it is not me who is pretending to be offended by this minor incident. It is insincere people like you. I have no problem with people choosing who stays on their property. You do, but only if the excluded group is gay !”

    —————————

    I’m not offended by this incident. The Lesbian couple that was denied accommodation by the lodge owners are the people that are offended. That’s why they complained to the HRC.

    The only insincere person in this thread is you – because you clearly don’t think that the existence of “women’s only” and “gay” lodges is worthy of a complaint to the HRC. If you were sincere in your beliefs, you would have put your name forward and made a complaint.

    Again. What’s stopping you from lodging a complaint?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Weihana, So suddenly discrimination is ok in the right “context” and can even be “reasonable” ?

    Well fuck me !

    Can you give me an example of when it is reasonable to discriminate against gays ? (In the same way gay guesthouses discriminate against straights) Or does this “context” bullshit only work in favour of gays ?

    I would have thought that someones home (the operators live there) was a pretty good context in the case of the Pilgrim Planet Lodge. You really are full of shit on this one Weihana.

    I have always supported homosexual law reforms. Not because I have any particular interest in gay issues, but because I do not think the government belongs in the bedroom. Those pretending this issue is about human rights are demanding the government does enter the bedroom, someone elses bedroom !

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Do you consider it reasonable to have exclusive gay retreats ?”

    ——————-

    I’m entirely happy for lodges to advertise themselves as gay exclusive.

    Conservatively minded visitors would no doubt find the experience of staying in a “gay” lodge to be uncomfortable and/or inappropriate. So it’s only fair that prospective visitors understand the nature of the accommodation that they are booking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, I am ok with exclusive gay lodges too.

    But are you not ok with lodges for straight people ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    I am happy for lodges to “advertise” themselves as gay exclusive.

    If they were discovered to be turning straight guests away, then I would hope that the guests would complain to the HRC.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Now here is a queer thing !

    A Google search for “Gay” accommodation gets thousands of hits. Yet I have found no “straight” accomodation at all. The only discrimination I have seen is against straight people.

    Tacking on “all welcome” does not cut it. How does this look ?:

    1. Exclusive guesthouse for White European people [mud races welcome]

    2. Exclusive Christian guesthouse for God Fearing Soldiers of Christ [hell bound sinners welcome]

    3. Exclusive Married Heterosexual guesthouse [filthy perverts welcome]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    I am happy for lodges to “advertise” themselves as gay exclusive.

    Yes you have said that and I agreed with you.

    But that was not my question. I am sure it was just a misunderstanding and you were not trying to avoid answering. I will repeat my question.

    Are you “happy for lodges to “advertise” themselves as gay heterosexual exclusive” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I keep trying to tell all you liberal folks that you should get away from the Gay stuff and go for this stuff.

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=sheep+lodges&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=AsaNUb821J6JB8uYgdAM&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1482&bih=885

    But no one ever listens! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Johnboy ;)

    ” J. A. Fitzgerald (1) cited as saying that 16% of domestic rams never mate with females. Of that 16%, 6% are asexual and 10% prefer rams to ewes. The corresponding behaviour is rare among ewes.”

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/rams.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    I’m entirely happy for lodges to advertise themselves as being exclusively heterosexual. And I’m happy for them to deal with the HRC if somebody makes a complaint about it.

    Gay lodges advertise themselves as such because nobody ever complains about them. As I have mentioned several times already, the HRC can only investigate if a complaint is made.

    I’d also like to point out that the reason you can’t find “straight” accommodation is because you aren’t using the correct search terms. Try doing a google search for “christian accommodation nz” and you’ll get over 100,000 hits.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    That is only an assumption though, Tom. And I’m not sure that an assumption that a particular group will behave badly is sufficiently “moral” to discriminate against an entire gender. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a stricter rules for conduct; no lewd, aggressive or noisy behaviour?

    It’s not an assumption. Sexual harassment is primarily man on woman, and this is one place where it does happen. Yes already have such rules, but it they are extremely difficult to police.

    Similarly, having a dorm in a western university that accepts only African students isn’t a big deal, because the reason is primarily to make things a bit easier for a racial minority who already have a tough time. The same goes for parking spaces for the disabled, and for gay only organizations that exist to help gay people because of societal discrimination. It’s the fact of existing social discrimination that justifies the existence of differential treatment.

    I would have no problem with a hostel for people of a specific religion not wanting homosexuals, as long as the hostel is restricted to people of that religion. If an establishment says that it is open to the general public, then it cannot discriminate on grounds of race or sexual orientation. That’s like having a no blacks policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Viking2 (11,668 comments) says:

    KevinH (939) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    The owners of this B&B, by declining the lesbian couple, committed the ultimate business folly, and that is to turn away business, a rather stupid thing to do that is supported by an equally large number of stupid people on this thread.
    =========================

    Obviously not a business owner then eh Kev.
    There is no God given socialist inspired absolute Law that says any business must do business with everyone who presents themselves at one’s door.
    If there is please tell us where we should find it.

    One of the absolute rules of business in a free market place is that when in business one can chose who one wants to do business with.
    These people chose not to do business with another party. Tough for that party but its the business choice. Always has been and always will be despite the despicable targeting by these people.
    House rules are my rules. Not yours until you own the house.

    One of the best feelings ever is to tell some shit head turkey like yourself to take your business and stick it right up where the sun don’t shine.
    Its just the best feeling ever.
    Its freedom making and of course its the business owners total perogative.

    And just in case you want a comparison it’s just like someone telling the boss to stick his job. The day you can survive without having to bow to the boss is the best day of your working life.
    Fortunately, we the voters, also have a choice and we will be allowed that same jubilation the day we boot sorry arses with your attitude out of our lives.

    That from someone who defended the right of these people to live their life as they chose. What pisses me off is that those same people who claim to have been discrimated against in ther personal relationships take advantage of the oppourtunity given to then attack others, who are then denied the right to make their personal choices.
    These two are a disgrace to their fellows. No doubt there will be more idiots like them.

    And of course reddy will be along to tell me he told me so. which he did but which I chose to ignore.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Can you give me an example of when it is reasonable to discriminate against gays?

    Not now, but back in the early 80s they should have refused blood donations from gay men, because there was no test regime for AIDS, and they were the most at risk group. To have done so would have prevented many deaths.

    Part of the reason AIDS became the problem it did was that gay rights organizations campaigned against things like this, to the massive detriment of their own constituency (although the idiocy was by no means confined to the gay community). Randy Shilts’ famous book is instructive in this regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Ewes have no access to strap-ons Kea.

    Not in Wainui anyway! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    Excellent. We need more good brave new zealanders to stand up to fascists and their disgusting perversions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    “having a dorm in a western university that accepts only non African students isn’t a big deal”

    How does it read now Tom ?

    I have never seen such unselfconscious hypocrites.

    I would have no problem with a hostel for people of a specific religion not wanting homosexuals, as long as the hostel is restricted to people of that religion.

    Being straight or gay is not a religion.

    How do you feel about Straight only lodges ? (I have not found any yet) How do you feel about the thousands of gay lodges, lesbian lodges, women only lodges ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    If an establishment says that it is open to the general public, then it cannot discriminate on grounds of race or sexual orientation.

    The issue is what constitutes an establishment as opposed to a private home.

    I have stayed at a small B & B in the past a few times. From memory they have 2 to 4 rooms for guests. You check in spent time in the lounge, go to bed, get up and have breakfast and check out. All facilities are shared. Do any of the libertarians or homosexual activists think the home owners should be compelled to have homosexual couples or cease business?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Viking2

    “One of the absolute rules of business in a free market place is that when in business one can chose who one wants to do business with.”

    ————————-

    I’m going to assume that you’ve never managed a business. Because that statement isn’t true and has never been true.

    If you want to run a business in New Zealand then you have got to follow all of the laws in NZ that regulate commercial activity. This includes the Human Rights Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I’m pretty keen on staying at women only lodges as long as I can wear some of my lovely woolen ball gowns! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    Both parties made a contract online when the lodge took their $30 deposit, plain and simple, the only two terms were:

    A deposit of $30 is required on booking. The balance is paid on arrival.

    The full amount is payable if cancellation is within 48 hours of the booked date.

    So if they had cancelled the booking within the 48 hour window would they’ve been required to still pay even though they would never been allowed to stay?

    This is were the lodge screwed up, like I’ve said before if this was a walk in you can decide who you want to let in the door (be smart about how you decline them) but if you took a deposit without disclosing your full terms you’re out of luck as long as they are lawful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson posted at 4.26:

    ..having a dorm in a western university that accepts only African students isn’t a big deal, because the reason is primarily to make things a bit easier for a racial minority who already have a tough time. The same goes for parking spaces for the disabled, and for gay only organizations that exist to help gay people because of societal discrimination.

    Once the minority is granted legal equality, reverse discrimination, a.k.a. affirmative action, becomes both paternalism by the liberal elite of the majority population, and unjustifiable discrimination against the non-liberal members of that majority.

    We have in this case religious freedom coming up against perceived rights of a minority group. Or, religion aside, we have the equivalent of two vegetarians wanting vegan food in a meat-eaters’ fast-food chain (there used to be one called Carnivores). Couldn’t the chain licensee reasonably say: “Try the hippy restaurant down the road, but here we only serve meat.”

    On a practical level, couldn’t the lesbians have made the most of the togetherness, of one of the single beds? Who would have cared in that case? Or were they oversize for that? Or do lesbians need a bigger playground than heterosexuals?

    Regardless, the case shows a need for B and B establishments for the gay. A smart marketer might market them as Beds and Buggery, or Butches and Broads.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    having a dorm in a western university that accepts only non African students isn’t a big deal”

    Why? Are they having a tough time?

    Asian universities have dorms for western students.

    Are you angry because the doctors won’t give you a smear test?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    Not now, but back in the early 80s they should have refused blood donations from gay men, because there was no test regime for AIDS, and they were the most at risk group. To have done so would have prevented many deaths.

    Tom, NZ Blood Services do accept blood from homosexuals at present. Across the Tasman some nut case homosexual are lobbying for the law to be changed in that regard and put the public at risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Once the minority is granted legal equality, reverse discrimination, a.k.a. affirmative action, becomes both paternalism by the liberal elite of the majority population, and unjustifiable discrimination against the non-liberal members of that majority

    Legal equality =/= actual social equality. The latter lags behind the former.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom, NZ Blood Services do accept blood from homosexuals at present

    It’s fine now as blood is screened. I was talking about when it wasn’t, before there was a screening test for HIV. Someone asked it was ever OK to discriminate against gays. That was a case where it was, for a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    I have never seen such unselfconscious hypocrites.

    Not to mention, such unselfconscious believers in their personal view of what’s acceptable holding some kind of universal writ.

    This case is remarkable – the two complainants have found a way to make me feel sympathy for a couple of nutbar religious fundies with a serious sodomy fixation, which is no small feat.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Help! Homos are storming my property having bum sex on the lawn, lezzers are at it on my car bonnet dear god make it stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The issue is what constitutes an establishment as opposed to a private home

    I agree that is highly relevant in this case. If its a private home, they can ban who they like.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Tom the argument you used is an identical one to that used by those who wanted blacks segregated in South Africa and other places. It works best for the Kafirs and its for their own benefit a ?

    This whole story is a beat up. A couple of angry militant dykes were not made to feel welcome. Tough shit. I suspect they knew the owners view in advance and that is why they targeted this small Ma & Pa business.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Quite clearly it’s a commercial lodgings business so they are nut job fundies as well as stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    This case is remarkable – the two complainants have found a way to make me feel sympathy for a couple of nutbar religious fundies with a serious sodomy fixation, which is no small feat.

    Same here.

    Why could the angry militant shoulder chipped dykes not just express their displeasure and go.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    It seems to have become rather popular for alternative folks to piss off normal folk and then run to the press so they can have their beautiful photos/tales of discrimination on Stuff/Harold etc.

    Wonder what brought that on? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom the argument you used is an identical one to that used by those who wanted blacks segregated in South Africa and other places. It works best for the Kafirs and its for their own benefit

    Surely, it’s what the “Kafirs” thought that matters, right? I seem to recall they weren’t enthusiasts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Not that I am saying that we shouldn’t have a bunch of poofters as MP’s of course! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, riposting to all and sundry, posted at 5.05:

    …Legal equality =/= actual social equality. The latter lags behind the former…

    Ah equality, where everyone is different but equal. A Utopian dream, Tom.

    It always sends up the way, the pigs in Animal Farm described:“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    Here’s where it ends up. Napoleon, the dictator pig, in the equivalent of a press release, says: ““No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I just looked up lesbian sex on the Internet. There’s videos and everything. I can’t see why any man wouldn’t want this in their house. I blame the hotelier’s wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Surely, it’s what the “Kafirs” thought that matters, right?

    Tom, Wrong.

    We need to respect the rights of the “minority” remember ? [or does that rule not apply if they are white?].

    In this case the angry militant man hating attention seeking dykes had no real rights removed from them. So everyone was a winner :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Re Tom at 5.23:

    Now you can tell us whether they really needed a double bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    “I blame the hotelier’s wife.”

    Silly bitch will probably provide complimentary dildoes, with prefitted condoms for future bookings! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    You CAN give blood if you have genital herpes but men CAN NOT give blood for five years after they’ve had sex with another man.

    http://www.nzblood.co.nz/Give-blood/Donating/Detailed-eligibility-criteria

    I feel very safe now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Viking2 (11,668 comments) says:

    gump (631) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    @Viking2

    “One of the absolute rules of business in a free market place is that when in business one can chose who one wants to do business with.”

    ————————-

    I’m going to assume that you’ve never managed a business. Because that statement isn’t true and has never been true.

    If you want to run a business in New Zealand then you have got to follow all of the laws in NZ that regulate commercial activity. This includes the Human Rights Act.
    ======================

    Gump, you really got it wrong.
    Aside from 3 years about working for others the rest of my near 50 years has been as owner of buisness.

    And there is no law compelling a business to do business with another person nor identity. By business I mean to provide goods or services to that other person, who in my language is known as a customer.
    Remember that long forgotten being, the customer.
    If ever a customer comes to our doors that for some reason we do not want to sell or provide a service too, then they get told to go elsewhere. Always our choice.
    The luxury of deciding your own rules. Of course we always have the choice of making the price so high that they will go away or we make heaps on the job.
    Every business should chose its customers. Failing to do so leaves one without a business plan.

    And by the way you will note I said “free market place” not some socialist utopia that stupid dicks like you want to impose upon others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    It’s dumb, Rick, and should be changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Viking2 (11,668 comments) says:

    Johnboy (10,622) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    “I blame the hotelier’s wife.”

    Silly bitch will probably provide complimentary dildoes, with prefitted condoms for future bookings! :)

    Pink do you think? 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson — “It’s dumb, Rick, and should be changed.”

    I agree, grouping all homosexuals as diseased is not a good public statement to make.

    I think they should just apply the standard STD rules they have to everyone and not get into peoples sexuality, like the recent census did.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    The Human Rights Commission can only responds to complaints. Nobody has ever complained about “women only” and “gay only” lodges.

    If you feel strongly about the matter, you should be prepared to put your name into the public arena and lodge a complaint with the HRC.

    Question: if Kea were to do that, how would you view his complaint? As a brave stand against a business clearly operating in breach of the Human Rights Act, or as a vexatious waste of the courts’ time and taxpayers’ money?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Ladies prefer big, black, ribbed condoms I have heard V2.

    Not that I would really know of any of these things of course! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    “I feel very safe now.”

    And so you should. I detect a bit of sarcastic there.
    Maybe we should set up two blood banks – one for conservatives and one for liberals. The one for conservatives would carry on with the existing rules and just supply blood to conservatives. The other would accept blood from homosexuals and prostitutes but supply to the liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I’d be happy to accept (irradiated) blood from folks of any persuasion if it helped me keep my flocks delusion of my rigid rule in place! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Viking2

    “And there is no law compelling a business to do business with another person nor identity. By business I mean to provide goods or services to that other person, who in my language is known as a customer.”

    ————————

    The law doesn’t compel you to do business with a customer, but it does restrict the reasons that you can give for declining to deal with that customer.

    You are breaking the law if you decline to serve a customer because of their:

    Sex (including pregnancy and childbirth)
    Marital status
    Religious belief
    Ethical belief
    Colour
    Race
    Ethnic or national origins
    Disability
    Age
    Political opinion
    Employment status
    Family status
    Sexual orientation

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird — “And so you should. I detect a bit of sarcastic there.”

    Ding Sarcasm, I would not be welcome at either of those blood banks, that’s why I would blood bank my own blood before an operation, and if I can find a place that will just let me blood bank all the time I would do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    So you can always say…”I just didn’t like the bastard” gump? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    How many operations have you had ricknz?

    And what for???? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    It’s not that I am nosy…I just like to know who I am mutually keying with! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird

    The NZ Blood Service screens all blood donations for HIV/AIDS. Which is a good thing given that 40% of the AIDS cases in NZ originated from heterosexual intercourse, intravenous drug use, or other sources.

    But since you seem to like the idea of maintaining separate blood banks, do you know which country maintained two separate blood banks in recent history?

    Apartheid South Africa. It was illegal under South African law for a white person to receive blood from a black donor.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    Johnboy — “How many operations have you had ricknz?”

    A bunch when I was a kid, none for the last 30 years but I believe in being prepared so I would gladly stock my own blood and when it was half way expired give it to the general blood bank stock and restock my own.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Imagine the media outcry if a Married conservative christian couple were turned away from one of the numerous gay guesthouses. I am sure it would get just as much coverage.

    Yeah right !

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    You reaaaaaly have to love guys who are prepared to give their half expired blood to the peasants! :)

    God (maybe) and your mum probably love you ricknz! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Gays have wrecked just about every gym in the entire fucken country with their preening and prancing.

    Most hetro blokes go there for some genuine exercise so that they look good for the girls – only to find that it’s the gay boys who are getting all gooey.

    It’s just no longer normal in there, and hetros are entitled to a normal enviroment as they were born that way!

    Gays have no legal right to wreck a natural enviroment for humans! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Imagine the media outcry if a Married conservative christian couple were turned away from one of the numerous gay guesthouses. I am sure it would get just as much coverage.”

    —————————

    Actually, I would expect most gay lodges to welcome a heterosexual couple. At the worst they might be treated with bemused indifference.

    You don’t seem to understand that gays don’t actually “hate” heterosexual couples. The lodges advertise themselves as “gay only” so that conservative couples aren’t made to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable by inadvertently booking accommodation at a lodge with gay staff and clientele.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    I understand just fine gump. My argument is not with gay folk, it is with insincere, contrived and dishonest shit heads with double standards. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Posing tossers go to gyms Harriet.

    Most of us get as fit as we can doing our physical work or get old and tired sitting behind our desks.

    Not surprised you are finding yourself surrounded by poofters at your poncy gym! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Hang on right there.

    Thanks. :cool:

    Isn’t the whole gay thing about the government staying out of bedroooms?

    Yep! It is!

    Hypocrites! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Manolo (14,165 comments) says:

    Johnboy, are you the new P.G.? God help you! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    God help us all if that be true Manolo! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    I did once go to the gym JB – for about a week when I was about 18 – almost 30 yrs ago!

    Got a missus now…..don’t bother going to the trouble to impress her….she fetches my beer cos she loves me! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    If she starts going to the gym Harriet you should start to worry! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    “Isn’t the whole gay thing about the government staying out of bedroooms?

    Yep! It is!

    Hypocrites!”

    Indeed yes Harriet. Now you are not allowed to stop homos fucking in your own bedroom in your own house. Or the media and HRC will be after you !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    ….” Now you are not allowed to stop homos fucking in your own bedroom in your own house.”….

    Well, dip me in honey & throw me to the lesbians! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Indeed yes Harriet. Now you are not allowed to stop homos fucking in your own bedroom in your own house. Or the media and HRC will be after you !”

    ——————–

    Provided you are acting in a lawful manner, you can stop almost any behaviour from happening in your own house.

    If you own a registered business that rents our accommodation within your house on a commercial basis (such as a lodge or bed & breakfast) then you must abide by the laws that regulate commercial activities. This includes the Human Rights Act.

    It embarrases me that you cannot understand the difference between these two situations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    Ding Sarcasm, I would not be welcome at either of those blood banks, that’s why I would blood bank my own blood before an operation, and if I can find a place that will just let me blood bank all the time I would do that.

    Rick, forget about the sarcasm. Do you think homosexuals should be able to donate blood and put recipients at risk and if so why – political correctness?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    The NZ Blood Service screens all blood donations for HIV/AIDS. Which is a good thing given that 40% of the AIDS cases in NZ originated from heterosexual intercourse, intravenous drug use, or other sources.

    Gump, are you homosexual? I think you may be because you are not very logical like PEB. Did you get better that 15% in math?

    Homosexuals make up less than 3 % of the population but account for about 50% of the case of HIV. Does that not tell you it is not too smart to accept blood from such a high risk group?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, it is also their family home. So your embarrassment is well earned.

    You have been caught out anyway. You have a huge logic gap and a double standard at work here. You have had all day to establish a coherent principle but have been unable to do so. Your just using this to beat the gay rights drum. Your preaching to the converted in my case, but I am interested in how to balance competing rights. I am not particularly interested in gays and do not find them very interesting. My interest is in keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    ‘……It embarrases me that you cannot understand the difference between these two situations…..”

    Gimp – it embarrases us that gays are currently going public without principal – we always hear the ‘bitch and moan’ saying from gays “the government should stay out of the bedroom.”

    But only when it suits….. Right? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Do you think homosexuals should be able to donate blood and put recipients at risk and if so why – political correctness?

    LOL, Chucky’s prime example of a loaded question.

    How about:

    Do you think people with more than 3 sexual partners should be able to donate blood and put recipients at risk and if so why – political correctness?

    or

    Do you think under men who used prostitues should be able to donate blood and put recipients at risk and if so why – political correctness?

    The fact that you are focusing on homosexuals, in particularly male homosexuals is not based on reason or logic, Chucky. It’s your very own personal obsession.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, this should sort your head out ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I’ve got the answer. Blokes who get a hard on and have sex with anyone should be banned from giving blood.

    That should solve it! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    If you own a registered business that rents our accommodation within your house on a commercial basis (such as a lodge or bed & breakfast) then you must abide by the laws that regulate commercial activities. This includes the Human Rights Act.

    Gump, you are one sick puppy. So you think that a retired couple in a tourist spot likes to rent out a room or to in their home to the likes of you and one of your mate you are helping turn reasonable liberals view. I gave blood many times and the likes of you would like to put New Zealand’s blood bank at risk for you political agenda. You make me sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Old blokes like me that cant get it up anymore should be tossed to the vampires! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    Kea:

    *Cough*

    gump, it is also their family home. So your embarrassment is well earned.

    You have been caught out anyway. You have a huge logic gap and a double standard at work here. You have had all day to establish a coherent principle but have been unable to do so. Your You’re just using this to beat the gay rights drum. Your You’re preaching to the converted in my case, but I am interested in how to balance competing rights. I am not particularly interested in gays and do not find them very interesting. My interest is in keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible.

    Just seeing what it’s like to stand in a hall monitor’s shoes – like Pete George does every day :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    We all know you just want those sexy young vampires on the tv shows JB!

    Dirty old bugger! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    @eszett

    Do not talk to me about logic.

    Do you think the people who determine NZ Blood Services are a bunch of homophobes?

    As I said I have donated blood many times and they ask the question about the use of prostitutes.

    Everything is a risk. If you are a homosexual – and it sounds like you are you are at greater risk of taking in up the arse than a heterosexual married couple and also a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship.

    NZ Blood Services policy is based on probability not politically correctness.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Nostradamus , quiet Saturday night at home getting to you is it ? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    Kea:

    Not at all – heading out shortly but thought I’d make a meaningful contribution to this thread first :)

    Chuck:

    If you are a homosexual – and it sounds like you are you are at greater risk of taking in up the arse than a heterosexual married couple and also a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship.

    Wow – I’m sure Eszett appreciates your concern.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    @Nostradamus

    I am not concern about Eszett. I am concerned sickos like him would happily put public health at risk to score a political point.

    I hope that Kea many now sees why some of us oppose homosexual activism. It is his lot that intruded in the bedroom of heterosexuals with the property relations bill. A man could live with a woman as a flatmate or a partner and she was not entitlement to half his assets. The law they brought as part of their sick agenda caused serious problems with many couple long term relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “gump, it is also their family home. So your embarrassment is well earned.

    ———————

    I’m embarrassed for you, Kea.

    They are not required to operate a hotel from their house. They choose to do so, and must therefore comply with all laws that regulate commercial accommodation providers if they wish to continue doing so.

    If they don’t want to comply with the law, then they should stop providing accommodation and engage in another line of work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird

    “Gump, you are one sick puppy. So you think that a retired couple in a tourist spot likes to rent out a room or to in their home to the likes of you and one of your mate you are helping turn reasonable liberals view. I gave blood many times and the likes of you would like to put New Zealand’s blood bank at risk for you political agenda. You make me sick.”

    ————————

    I don’t make you sick.

    Your hatred is making you sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, if the law actually says that, then the law needs to change.

    I have always supported legislation that provides more rights to gays. But I do not support legislation that does it at the expense of other rights. The angry militant straight hating lesbian publicity whores had no rights taken from them. They just went someplace else and stayed there.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, until recently homosexuality was considered a mental illness and the “law” made it a criminal offence to indulge in homosexual acts. No doubt you would have supported the “law” back then too ?

    The fact is you only care about the law and a persons rights when it is in favour of gay people. You show no concern about the rights of the injured party (the guesthouse owners) and no concern about property rights.

    This sort of thing needs to be jumped on. Militant bitter feminists are behind this, not gays. They should be sued for damages by the owners.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Do you think the people who determine NZ Blood Services are a bunch of homophobes?

    No, but the policies should be regularly reviewed to see if they are stillvalid and sensible. I think do think they are probably afraid of vocal opponents like yourself should they change their policy.

    I am not concern about Eszett. I am concerned sickos like him would happily put public health at risk to score a political point.

    How quickly you switch to personal abuse Chucky. Just highlights that your argument are based on emotion rather than reason.
    You are not concerned about public health. You are only concerned at marginalizing and discriminating against homosexuals wherever you can. That’s your prime objective.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    The law simply says that being gay cannot be given as a reason to discriminate against a customer.

    In this particular case, the right that the Lesbian couple has lost is the right to be treated like any other couple would have been treated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    They were not discriminated against for being gay. The owner did not want them sleeping in the same bed, that is all. It is their house and they make the rules.

    I showed you some examples of real discrimination by lesbians and women. All you did was make lame and unconvincing excuses for it. Your a total fake and no one here is stupid enough not to see through you.

    I think the problem is Christianity. I think we should send the ladies off to Saudi Arabia and they can have a Sharia Court hear their concerns. That way they will not have to endure this terrible awful discrimination they suffer here in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “The fact is you only care about the law and a persons rights when it is in favour of gay people. You show no concern about the rights of the injured party (the guesthouse owners) and no concern about property rights.”

    ————————

    Please tell me what injury has been incurred by the guesthouse owners. This is a serious question.

    As for your comment about property rights, the issue for the guesthouse owners is that the Human Rights Act regulates all businesses that offer goods, facilities, or services to the public. Part 2, sectio 44 of the act states very clearly:

    “It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—

    (a) to refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or

    (b) to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—

    by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.”

    http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304621.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Viking2 (11,668 comments) says:

    nasska (6,279) Says:
    May 11th, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    ….” Now you are not allowed to stop homos fucking in your own bedroom in your own house.”….

    Well, dip me in honey & throw me to the lesbians! :)

    Been out searching for ya naaska. Found those lesbians in the honey. Didn’t see you! 8O

    http://desiredesire.tumblr.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    I hope that Kea many now sees why some of us oppose homosexual activism.

    Chuck Bird, I always did see your point and shared many of the concerns.

    Most of this is not driven by gays in general. It is most often militant angry feminist women. They are the ones who are out to destroy marriage and the traditional family unit. Gay men are not out to destroy marriage and traditional family units. Feminists are your real enemy and are using gay issues as part of a wider agenda. The founders of the male hate group Women Refuge openly stated the destruction of marriage as their founding goal, in their book.

    Forget the gays and go after the real enemy. Even Red fails to see who is behind most of the things he complains about. It is not faggots, queers or liberals. It is feminist womin, both gay and straight. They are behind most to the destructive social changes we see. Just look at that evil vile bitch Klark as an example. She infected the entire public service with her feminist sisterhood. People were appointed on their sexuality and hatred of men, not ability or experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “They were not discriminated against for being gay. The owner did not want them sleeping in the same bed, that is all. It is their house and they make the rules.”

    ————————

    The guesthouse owners had a room with a bed that they refused to let the Lesbian guests use because they were Lesbians. This is clearly discriminatory as a heterosexual couple would not have been treated in this way.

    “My house, my rules” might be a good technique for parents to use, but it has no basis in commercial law. A commercial accommodation provider cannot set rules that contravene NZ laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Most of this is not driven by gays in general. It is most often militant angry feminist women. They are the ones who are out to destroy marriage and the traditional family unit. Gay men are not out to destroy marriage and traditional family units. Feminists are your real enemy and are using gay issues as part of a wider agenda. The founders of the male hate group Women Refuge openly stated the destruction of marriage as their founding goal, in their book.

    Forget the gays and go after the real enemy. Even Red fails to see who is behind most of the things he complains about. It is not faggots, queers or liberals. It is feminist womin, both gay and straight. They are behind most to the destructive social changes we see. Just look at that evil vile bitch Klark as an example. She infected the entire public service with her feminist sisterhood. People were appointed on their sexuality and hatred of men, not ability or experience.”

    ———————–

    Or perhaps it’s just two ordinary women who simply wanted the hotel room that they had booked and paid for…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump. no your telling lies again. Tut tut !

    They simply did not want them in the same bed.

    I really think only a Sharia Court can resolve this serious issue. Insha’Allah, those Christians are just too intolerant and bigoted. I am sure you agree :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    I support the couple renting out their accommodation to who they like. But more and more we will get these stories. The homosexual lobby will not rest till everyone bends to their will. What a queer country we have become. Let’s elect a conservative government and throw out the entire gay agenda!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    …..”Found those lesbians in the honey.”…..

    Now that’s more like it V2…..mind you the poor emaciated creatures bear no resemblance to our own homegrown bull-dykes found in abundance in gay nightclubs & Government Departments throughout NZ. :0

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Or perhaps two ordinary women simply wanted the hotel room that they had booked and paid for.

    Yes certainly. But very very unlikely.

    You can come up with any scenario if you add “perhaps” to it.

    “Perhaps”…

    1. They hate men.

    2. They hate baby Jesus.

    3. They want to destroy marriage.

    4. They are communists.

    5. They targeted this guest house knowing it was run by conservative folk.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Glad to see that my folksy use of the word “folk” is wearing off on youse folk Kea! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Now that’s more like it V2…..mind you the poor emaciated creatures bear no resemblance to our own homegrown bull-dykes found in abundance in gay nightclubs & Government Departments throughout NZ. :0

    The angry bull dykes around parliament are really scary ! I am not generally scared of bull dykes and have been known to waltz around the room with them at one of my favourite bars :) But the ones employed by the government are dangerous looking. They are the kind that hate men, not love women.

    I had a lesbian girl tell me that many lesbians are actually pretty violent in relationships, which surprised me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Is H2 like that Kea?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    With the ones I’ve seen Kea, any acts of violence within a relationship could be videoed & sold as Down Under sumo wrestling. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Please tell me what injury has been incurred by the guesthouse owners. This is a serious question.

    They will have received negative publicity, abuse and threats. They should do them for damages.

    As for your clumsy attempt to use law, they were not denied a room or a bed. The owners offered them beds and all services. The angry militant publicity seeking lesbians breached the contract, not the owners.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    nasska, I remember trying my luck chatting up this lovely looking lady at the bar. I noticed this large women with a flat top hair cut standing by me smiling. After a while I asked “am I chatting up your missus ?” She nodded and smiled. We had a good laugh and a beer. She was the bouncer and very muscular. We ended up getting on really well and I would get lots of cuddles every time she was there. Her girlfriend was a feminine little blonde and very cute. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Scott

    “I support the couple renting out their accommodation to who they like. But more and more we will get these stories. The homosexual lobby will not rest till everyone bends to their will. What a queer country we have become. Let’s elect a conservative government and throw out the entire gay agenda!”

    ——————-

    The Human Rights Act was passed into law in 1993. Why will we start to see more stories now?

    The guesthouse owners have had twenty years to come up to speed with their legal obligations.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “They will have received negative publicity, abuse and threats. They should do them for damages.

    As for your clumsy attempt to use law, they were not denied a room or a bed. The owners offered them beds and all services. The angry militant publicity seeking lesbians breached the contract, not the owners.”

    ——————–

    Damages? They broke the law and are being criticised for it. Sound fair to me.

    The Lesbian couple booked a room with a double bed. There was a room with a double bed available, but the guesthouse owners declined to rent them that room solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    It’s pretty clear that the guesthouse owners have contravened the Human Rights Act. Perhaps they might like to consider another line of business.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    Give it time & tucker Kea….after a few years of a diet of carpet & Mallowpuffs your feminine little cute blondie will look like a beached whale. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    @ Tom
    “It’s not an assumption. Sexual harassment is primarily man on woman, and this is one place where it does happen. ”

    It is indeed an assumption.

    I think everyone is perfectly aware that most sexual harassment occurs by men on women; but the fact remains you are sanctioning the tarring of an entire gender with the same brush. Many – if not most – men would never dream of sexually harassing anyone. There are a minority of dicks in every group – which most people already know. Should the rest be excluded on that basis? Should convenience stores be able to target certain ethnicities because some have a greater history of armed robberies on convenience stores?

    As it happens – based on what I’ve read on the HRC’s own site – clubs, schools etc. are able to discriminate on pretty much whichever basis they wish, which is not ideal, but at least it is consistent. Yet it’s a long bow to draw to presume that they will all be for “moral reasons” even if the favoured groups all happen to have historic grievances.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    nasska, Lipstick lessies can be very hot. Some years back I used to be friends with one. She was a slim Maori girl and super hot. Guys would go nuts over her. She used to tell them she was “not interested in men” and of course that got them even more worked up, as their little minds dreamt up all manner of fantasy ! She used to do all kinds of stuff with me on the dance floor so I looked like a bloody legend, but nothing every happened. :)

    One thing I noticed is how she could walk into a room and spot the lesbians in a flash. Women you would never think were gay. Mostly they would come over and chat by the end of the night.

    gimp, maybe those gay & lesbian guesthouses might also ” like to consider another line of business.” Now you have taught me all about the law ” It’s pretty clear that the guesthouse owners have contravened the Human Rights Act.”

    You could not get away with expressing a preference for, straights, whites, christians etc. Thanks for all the legal advice. It has really helped make my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    I think this comes under the heading of: While you are in my house you abide by my rules. If you are offended, then TUFF!!!

    Weihana and Kacang. You accuse those who disagree with homos as being bigots. Please be aware that a bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race. The word bigot can just as easily be turned on yourselves as you come across as being “utterly intolerant”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    corrigenda, I agree. It is a balancing act deciding this one. But given there is no real harm done to the lesbian women, I think the rights of the owner should be given preference. If they want to turn away business, then that brings its own penalty.

    I might feel differently if it were a big problem, but this is just a beat up to make a point. Gays are not widely discriminated against in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Two gays are driving down the street when they see a dog on the side of the road licking his prick. “I sure wish I could do that,” said the one gay. To which the other replied,

    “Don’t you think you ought to pet him first??” :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “gimp, maybe those gay & lesbian guesthouses might also ” like to consider another line of business.” Now you have taught me all about the law ” It’s pretty clear that the guesthouse owners have contravened the Human Rights Act.””

    ————————-

    If gay & lesbian guesthouses were found to be turning away heterosexual couples, then those couples would be fully entitled to lay a complaint with the HRC.

    The difference with the situation up in Whangarei is that it *actually* happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    gump, no. If a guesthouse stated a preference for Straight people there would be hell to pay and the wankers at the HRC would be all over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Messy business, sex. Messy. Ask any older woman. Ugh.

    Two, four, six, eight
    Lessies want to masturbate
    Three, five, seven, nine
    They don’t care what you opine
    But on your sheets they ejaculate?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    To answer AG’s question, do the owners share the accommodation with the public?

    The answer is they no more share accommodation with the public than a hotel owner/manager who lives in a self contained unit in the hotel.

    There is one building, there are two self contained units on the ground floor, the owners live on the second floor, the guest house is on the third floor – there are 4 ensuite units (3 queen the 4th has two single beds) – they share communal areas, kitchen, living etc.

    Apparently they try and get those they do want to think are having sex to use the 4th unit guest house unit. If they discriminate on the basis of race, marital status or sexual orientation – when they take bookings for the shared bed rooms – they are in breach of the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Apparently they try and get those they do NOT want to think are having sex to use the 4th unit guest house unit … so that they cannot sleep together … . If they discriminate on the basis of race, marital status or sexual orientation – when they take bookings for the shared bed rooms – they are in breach of the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Sounds a bit like the Ruskins are deeply offended by the gay marriage law and are taking matters unto their own hands to prevent a tsunami of gayness blowing over the country.

    Or as Dennis so eloquently puts it, an ejaculate of lesbianism. You’ve been researching on the internet again haven’t you Dennis you naughty boy.

    Ruskin said. “It’s my own personal integrity to say I don’t want same-sex sex in my house.”

    He had previously allowed homosexual guests to share a room with single beds, but was not prepared to “facilitate behaviour I disagree with because that would be hypocrisy”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    Of course, despite Kea’s ramblings it is not Ruskin’s “house” as in the family home, it is a business establishment attached to or contained by the family home.

    To all intents and purposes a rented room becomes the property of the renter during the rental period. It certainly does not remain part of the family home.

    For mine I would support any move to make all discrimination, as long as it does not physically injure or hurt anyone, legal as long as it is openly advertised at all opportunity.

    “We’ll accept the Chinks and the Niggers but we don’t want the Irish” (Blazing Saddles) sounds OK to me. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Listen up you cunts the fucking lore is now the fucking law so YOU WILL OBEY and you will approve or else the big boggy man will cum for you. Lovely women. Nurturing and understanding others. Forgiving. Drive all the way to Whangarei from just down the road to make a point.

    Like the little boy who saved Holland, I stick a finger to those dykes.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Dennis is clearly outraged and is off to research more depraved homosexual practises on the internet, again. It seems he is interested in big men cumming and lesbian fingering.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    If gay & lesbian guesthouses were found to be turning away heterosexual couples, then those couples would be fully entitled to lay a complaint with the HRC

    Then I’ll repeat my question (which would apply equally to men refused a room at a women-only guesthouse): if they were to complain, how would you view their complaint? As a brave stand against a business clearly operating in breach of the Human Rights Act, or as a vexatious waste of the courts’ time and taxpayers’ money?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    Do you think the people who determine NZ Blood Services are a bunch of homophobes?
    No, but the policies should be regularly reviewed to see if they are still valid and sensible. I think do think they are probably afraid of vocal opponents like yourself should they change their policy.

    @eszett

    This has been done in New Zealand recently and the deferral period for male homosexuals was change from 10 years to 5 years. No one except a few militant nut case homosexuals complained. At least the AIDS Foundation accepts the position of the NZ Blood Services.

    In Oz there is some sick homosexual by name of Rodney Croome taking legal action against blood services there which if successful with put the general public at risk.

    http://www.spcs.org.nz/2013/rodney-croome-gay-blood-donor-rights-and-gay-sex-hiv-threat/

    There are some sick puppies here like gump here that would be happy to do the same although he like many homosexuals knew little about HIV. That is why the incidence amongst homosexuals is over 20 times that of the general population.

    How quickly you switch to personal abuse Chucky.

    Can you not see the hypocrisy in the above statement?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    Then I’ll repeat my question (which would apply equally to men refused a room at a women-only guesthouse): if they were to complain, how would you view their complaint? As a brave stand against a business clearly operating in breach of the Human Rights Act, or as a vexatious waste of the courts’ time and taxpayers’ money?

    @Psycho Milt

    I complained to the HRC about Air New Zealand policy in regards males sitting next to unaccompanied minors. It is okay for a butch dyke to sit next to a pretty 14 year old girl but not okay for a man to do the same.

    My complaint was of course ignored by the HRC and Air New Zealand was a mainly State owned business not a privately owned one.

    We still have the law that threats male assaults female far more seriously than female assaults male. This discriminatory law should be changed but I cannot see any of the hypocritical MPs so concerned about the rights of homosexuals more than the rights of children doing anything soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    Basil Fawlty would not have allowed them to stay either ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. gump (1,680 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt

    “Then I’ll repeat my question (which would apply equally to men refused a room at a women-only guesthouse): if they were to complain, how would you view their complaint? As a brave stand against a business clearly operating in breach of the Human Rights Act, or as a vexatious waste of the courts’ time and taxpayers’ money?”

    ——————-

    I wouldn’t view it as either situation, but I’m amused by your false dichotomy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    gump (645) Says: May 12th, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    Psycho Milt “… view their complaint? As a brave stand against a business clearly operating in breach of the Human Rights Act, or as a vexatious waste of the courts’ time and taxpayers’ money?”

    I wouldn’t view it as either situation, but I’m amused by your false dichotomy.

    False dichotomy? Blah-blah-blah. When the absurdity is pointed out you wriggle. Weasel.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Are you bedwetter “Dennis”?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    Silly faggettes. I’d have turned them away for one of them looking like a bull dyke for starters.

    The never ending tiresome campaign by the degenerates & their enablers (yes, you Farrar!) for normalcy continues unabated. Obviously this is the first of the “test cases”. Let businesses do business without the threat of becoming unwitting or unwilling pawns in a social revolt by a bunch of misfit weirdo’s & political activists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Kea (13,546 comments) says:

    Special rights for sodomites

    who want play through out the night

    in your guest house, its their right

    the HRC will use their might to crush all those who dare to fight

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t view it as either situation, but I’m amused by your false dichotomy.

    There are of course other possible answers. But sure – if the law is stupid enough, it’s best not to be drawn into expressing an opinion on the merits of particular cases or you end up looking stupid yourself. Best to just refer to the law as though it were some physical law of the universe rather than a piece of legislation weaseled into being by politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    There was a blog commenter called Kea
    Who counselled us to give without fear
    Everything demanded by the homosexuals
    Ignore as bigots and bullies the intellectuals
    Now he’s realising who’s really nasty and queer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote