We arrived at our hotel, and there was a man and a woman working behind the counter. The man seemed to be the manager. The woman started our check-in process, and asked me, "Oh, did you know the room has a king-size bed?" (Meaning, just one bed.) "Yes, that's fine," I said.

The manager had started checking in a young straight couple who had come in, and just as the woman behind the counter was getting ready to make out the little magnetic-card door keys for us, the manager came over and said, "Here, why don't you swap with them so you can have two double beds?"

Now, I'm sure the guy probably just thought he was helping out, but I did NOT want to squeeze into a double bed for the whole weekend, so I had to say, "No, I WANT the king-size bed." The poor young couple both turned beet red, and the manager gave me a surly look... I hated to embarrass him, but he'd kind of put ME on the spot, after all. And I wasn't giving up the better room.

This isn't at all on the same scale as the guys in the news article, since as I said, the manager was probably just trying to be helpful, but jeez... I'm glad the rest of our trip went more smoothly than that did!

I wonder if the comments section on that website is moderated? I clicked through to the comments expecting YouTube-level craziness. It was remarkably civil.

But I had to LOL at the names. Pickel & Black Bear? Awesome.

Wow. That hotel and American Airlines should get together and offer a package deal.

The gay couple should have said, "Okay, we'll just have sex in our car in the parking lot then."

I hope they sue the hotel out of business. To me, refusing service based on sexual orientation is just like refusing to rent a room to a couple of an ethnicity they don't like or heaven forbid a mixed race couple. I can't believe we are talking about something that is happening in the 21st century. They're here. They're queer. Get used to it.

To me, refusing service based on sexual orientation is just like refusing to rent a room to a couple of an ethnicity they don't like

Morally similar, yes, but gay folks have no legal protection from this kind of thing.

Not in South Carolina, anyway.

Interesting article, and interesting story, BP!

In the article, it seems like the policy is trying to keep 2 adults (who aren't "a couple") from renting a single room together and splitting the lower rate. But that's impossible to police, and leads to discriminatory "You two aren't a couple, but those two are" definitions. Just charge by the person and be done with it.

After watching The Trap recently I'm struggling with issues like this. Particularly within the context of negative liberty. On the one hand, refusing services to people because of sexual orientation is reprehensible, but on the other hand I like the idea of "The Silence of the Law".

Of course, the fact is that Law makers ban all kinds of homosexual behaviour, and this is also contrary to the concept of negative liberty. So in the real world I say: Yes, sue the pants off them.

But conceptually, in a free society, should we stop individuals from refusing service because of individual moral grounds. (esp. When the refusal is limited to a subsection of society and no free man is "hindered to do what he hath the will to do"

These are very confusing times for me. Adam Curtis has a lot to answer for.

You know, shit like this must be a real quandary for your right wing-types. On the one hand, they might not like gays, but on the other hand, they really like money, so turning away some would be a crime to them, you'd think. Must tie the fuckers in knots.

Ha jonmc!

Just charge by the person and be done with it.

Exactly. This story boggles the mind. Good on them for calling the news station.

Well, everybody likes money; that's why they call it money, to channel Joe Pesci. But considering that other than tourism, SC doesn't have a whole lot going for it economically (I know; I'm an economic refugee from there myself), these benighted people ought to stop and think about how they've "cut off their noses to spite their faces" by being bad hosts right out in front of G*d 'n' ever'body.

Oh, and

However, when News19 called the owner of the hotel, Carroll Atkisson, he says there had been some confusion. He says any couple can come to the place and they will rent to them, period. Atkisson says the policy was not mean to target homosexuals. He says they were just trying to stop two single people from being in the same bed.

South Carolina: It's Not The Heat, It's The Stupidity.

Aren't hotels public accommodations, like buses and trains? I thought hotel owners were powerless to discriminate on the basis of "customers' race, sex, color, religion, or national origin," based on the Civil Rights act of 1964, and the subsequent holding in Heart of Atlanta Motel v US. Hotels are necessary for interstate commerce, right? Given the Lawrence v. Texas, I should think this would apply to sexual orientation (discrimination on the basis of the sex of the customers being identical) as well!

Atkisson says the policy was not mean to target homosexuals. He says they were just trying to stop two single people from being in the same bed.

So it's not just gay sex they're afraid of, it's ANY fornication that they're trying to stop. Did I just wake up this morning and it's 1943 again?

Aren't hotels public accommodations, like buses and trains? I thought hotel owners were powerless to discriminate on the basis of "customers' race, sex, color, religion, or national origin,"

They are, but legally they can still discriminate against people because they are gay. Clearly, legislation needs to be enacated to protect gays, but in our current political environment it is going the other way.

Hotel staff and drugstore clerks should use EXTREME discretion in ALL customer interactions. Even though the guy didn't throw you out on your ear, BoringPostcards, it was a pretty big faux-pas in the hotel world.

should we stop individuals from refusing service because of individual moral grounds

It's one of the wonders of the capitalist economy: it's amoral. It's not good for business when people start getting all moralistic about who they will and will not trade with. If someone can't count on getting a damn hotel room for the night in the state of Tennessee, they sure as hell won't be attending any business conferences that are held there, etc.

Also, not that a hotel is equivalent with a hospital, but it can be almost an essential service in some circumstances. Imagine your car breaking down on a 5-hour drive through some area where they won't serve men with long hair at the restaurants, gas stations, or hotels. You'd be pretty well fucked, now, wouldn't you?

I think it's mostly about not wanting to surrender the reins of the economy to random fundies everywhere, and man, do I agree.