What is this "real reason" of which you speak?

There could be a whole host of reasons why the person said whay they are alleged to have. For instance, he / she may have thought they were two mates who had made a mistake on an internet booking.

You have to ask yourself - why this has reached the press?

to expose homophobic bigots?

Be interesting to see if they'll stand up in court of law and call the receptionist such a thing.

I doubt it will get to that, justice is rarely done in the UK about such things.

they have a 2 for one offer on railway sleepers in B&Q, should make a nice sturdy cross for you in time for Easter.

This was written by someone on the Express' comments board in relation to a judge whose judgement was strongly at odds with Theresa May's wish to deport foreign criminals. Could apply to so many of the threads on here and the muddled thinking in modern Britain:

Perhaps this judge could learn something of the law of England from one of his predecessors .In an address Lord Denning gave to The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship in November 1954 he asked; "Why do people obey the law?" And gave the following answer: "The people of England do not obey the law because they are commanded to do so; nor because they are afraid of sanctions or being punished. They obey the law because they know it is the thing they ought to do ..... For this reason it is most important that the law should be just. People will respect rules which are intrinsically right and just, and will expect their neighbours to obey them, as well as obeying them themselves: but they will not feel the same about rules which are unrighteous or unjust. If people are to feel a sense of obligation to the law, then the law must correspond, as near as may be, to justice."

But then again - perhaps the past really is another country?

why can't you divorce fairy stories from reality?

In the context of this particular thread, there are millions of citizens (of which Kirkstaller would appear one), including alot of solid older people who genuinely believe same sex marraige to be unrighteous. All these vociferous campaigns by minorities (of all types) do is to undermine confidence in the law and with that we should all worry.

And those "millions of citizens" are entitled to hold onto whatever bigoted beliefs they choose. However they are not allowed to discriminate against gay people based on those beliefs, just like a racist is entitled to hold nto his racist beliefs but cannot discriminate against people of a certain race.



What these "vociferous campaigns" do achieve is that they protect the rights of such minorities from backwards and intolerant bigots. The only reason people have their confidence in the laws undermined is because they consider their beliefs to be above the law.

I notice for instance how many people who oppose laws protecting gay people from discrimination often have no trouble supporting anti discrimination laws against other groups.

that's what Dally and kirkstaller put on their passport application as "profession"

Homophobia.


Even after repeated in-person confirmation that they wanted a double?
Give over.


No idea.
Sounds to me like an admin or overbooking error compounded by a duff receptionist who was dim enough not to realise that two blokes, who had booked a double and repeatedly confirmed in person that they wanted a double, actually did want a double.
The receptionist seems to have gone on and on with "Wouldn't you prefer singles?" where a simple "I'm terribly sorry, it's our fault, but we've overbooked the doubles, would you be OK with singles and a couple of free drinks at the bar?" would have avoided all the fuss.
If it had been me, I'd have demanded an upgrade.