Discrimination at the Delta Grand?

[Fleshfailures]

http://www.globaltvbc.com/claims+of+sexual+orientation+discrimination+at+a+kelowna+hotel/6442564333/story.html
Julia Wong, CHBC News : Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:00 AM
Photo Credit: CHBC News , Julia Wong

Four Okanagan women are claiming a Kelowna hotel discriminated them based on their sexual orientation.

On Friday night, Susan Hillock and three other women went to the Vines Lounge at the Delta Grand Hotel at 9 p.m. for a post-hockey game meal.

“There was a loud group of Texans sitting behind us,” said Hillock. “We were just sitting there enjoying the evening.”

“We ordered up drinks,” said Carla Lundman, who was a member of the group.

But it is what happened next that has them upset.

“At one point, my partner, who is a woman, said something funny and I learned over and kissed her on the lips,” Hillock said.

The women say that action turned their night upside down.

“I asked him why I had been refused service,” Hillock said, referring to the manager of the Vines. “He said it was because I was over gregarious. I asked what does that mean exactly and he could not tell me.”

Yvonne Chaperon, another member of the group, believes the action is because the women are lesbians.

“His face changed when he saw Sue and Arlene kiss. We were fine up to that point,” Chaperon said.

Hillock admits she had three drinks before arriving at the hotel but denies she was severely intoxicated. Two others in the group were sober.

“I have been at that bar before. I’ve been louder. I’ve had more to drink and I’ve kissed men there and I’ve never been refused service,” she said.

Hotel staff called security to deal with the situation.

“We ended up having to have security help escort them off the property,” said Delta Grand General Manager Daniel Bibby.

Bibby denies the hotel discriminated the women because of their sexual orientation. Instead he says the women were refused service because of “over-service of alcohol."

Bibby also says the women allegedly assaulted two employees but admits the RCMP were not called.

The women deny the hotel’s version of the story and are demanding an apology.

“We all have rights to expression affection. We all have rights to have partners,” said Hillock.

“The only crime was that we weren’t heterosexual. We were homosexual,” said Chaperson.

The women plan to file a human rights complaint and are taking their story to social media in hopes other people will boycott the hotel.

Read it on Global News: Global BC | Claims of sexual orientation discrimination at a Kelowna hotel

Saw this on the news tonight. I think the hotel's story seems a bit off, what do you all think?

[The Green Barbarian]

hurray - more tax payer cash wasted because of hurt feelings by our "human rights" commissions. Wonderful.

[sanfish]

hurray - more tax payer cash wasted because of hurt feelings by our "human rights" commissions. Wonderful.

EXACTLY! I couldnt agree more GB. Why spend money on just hurt feelings when there is OH SO MUCH we could be spending our money on to ACTUALLY HURT people like shiny new war jets and so many new prisons just waiting to be filled with pot smokers leaving more room on the streets for creepy old men to expose themselves and run their "junk" over a schoolyard fence like a cheese grater in front of our children and do LESS time haha

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*/ferri

Or...the hotel is telling the truth, and these women are hiding behind our stupid "human rights" laws to avoid admitting they were acting drunk and disorderly. We don't know the whole story, but as per usual, people just assume that there MUST have been discrimination, and that these women don't have to accept any responsibility for their actions, drunken or otherwise, just because they can just wave their hand and shout "I was discriminated against" no matter what they do, and everyone just bends over, and our government-funded kangaroo courts run by our government-funded "hurt feelings" police are only to eager to be involved. I have no doubt this "complaint" goes all the way to the hearing stage, and costs us (the taxpayers) at least $50K, at the minimum, and the hotel a bundle in legal fees to defend themselves. For what? So that next time they decide to get loaded in the hotel and make a scene everyone is supposed to just shut up and accept it for fear of being prosecuted for hurting their feelings? Money well spent, because it's not yours.

[Ford4x4Truck]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

[The Green Barbarian]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

yes - real human rights should not be belittled - like the right to own property, the right to a fair trial, the right to be given all the same advantages and freedoms Canada has to offer no matter your race, religion etc. Those are real human rights. "Hurt feelings" is a fake human right.

[BoB76]

They should have saved their kissing til later to avoid a confrontation. If I stuck my tongue down Fluffy's throat I'd fully expect to get kicked out. Maybe they should take :sillygrin: it home instead of embarrassing themselves in front of everyone on the news.

Sorry Fluffy......

[Ford4x4Truck]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

yes - real human rights should not be belittled - like the right to own property, the right to a fair trial, the right to be given all the same advantages and freedoms Canada has to offer no matter your race, religion etc. Those are real human rights. "Hurt feelings" is a fake human right.

This doesn't make any sense. The right to equality based on sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what this article is about. You're making a biased assumption and trying to belittle the situation by saying it's simply about hurt feelings. Homophobia isn't something to be taken lightly.

[BoB76]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

yes - real human rights should not be belittled - like the right to own property, the right to a fair trial, the right to be given all the same advantages and freedoms Canada has to offer no matter your race, religion etc. Those are real human rights. "Hurt feelings" is a fake human right.

This doesn't make any sense. The right to equality based on sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what this article is about. You're making a biased assumption and trying to belittle the situation by saying it's simply about hurt feelings. Homophobia isn't something to be taken lightly.

What's wrong with being homophobic? It's someone's beliefs and that's all. Very similar to being racist just a little bit nicer.

[sanfish]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

yes - real human rights should not be belittled - like the right to own property, the right to a fair trial, the right to be given all the same advantages and freedoms Canada has to offer no matter your race, religion etc. Those are real human rights. "Hurt feelings" is a fake human right.

You know while I have enjoyed ragging on you for how you have treated other posters I really and honestly must agree with you on this post(and even a few others)! While we differ greatly on the "bigger picture" of many of the issues facing society today I couldnt agree more with absolutely how ridiculous some things have become in this regard.Disclaimer...by in "this regard" I am merely commenting on this post in general as Im not familiar with this case at all(nor any allegations of previous misconduct) and am strongly against any kind of discrimination/abuse regardless of whether it is based on race,creed,gender,orientation or otherwise

Ps Its a shame you couldnt expand the beliefs from even just this post and apply it for the greater good as you would be a welcome addition in helping to empower people to stop feeling they deserve to be coddled so much and need the protection/moral compass of " Harper Govt"... The Govt" previously know of as the Canadian Govt( haha see what I did there ? Like Prince )

[The Green Barbarian]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

yes - real human rights should not be belittled - like the right to own property, the right to a fair trial, the right to be given all the same advantages and freedoms Canada has to offer no matter your race, religion etc. Those are real human rights. "Hurt feelings" is a fake human right.

This doesn't make any sense. The right to equality based on sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what this article is about. You're making a biased assumption and trying to belittle the situation by saying it's simply about hurt feelings. Homophobia isn't something to be taken lightly.

and you are assuming that there was homophobia here, and that's just wrong. You weren't there, you don't know, yet you immediately claim that it must have happened, and reach for the moral soapbox to denounce anyone who isn't immediately in agreement with siccing the taxpayer-funded "human rights" police on the Delta Grand. I am saying that these "fundamental aspects" of the Charter you bandy about are being totally mis-used and applied in these kinds of situations, used as an excuse or a "get out of jail free card" when someone is acting like an ass in public and when they are disciplined just throw up their hands and shout "discrimination"!! They can always count on a segment of our population to immediately jump to their defense, and attempt to look intelligent by spouting quotes from the charter, meanwhile real people are actually hurt, by having to hire lawyers to defend themselves, while they are prosecuted by our kangaroo court "human rights" commissions, where truth is not a defence.

This same situation occurred a few years ago with the case of the comedian Guy Earle, and a table of drunk hecklers who just happened to be homosexual. When Guy finally had enough of them, and told them to shut-up, he was hauled in front of a human rights commission for hurting their feelings. Guy had to foot his bill for his legal defence, while the "injured" parties didn't have to pay a cent, as the Ontario "Human Rights" gestapo was covering all of their costs. You should read "Shakedown" by Ezra Levant, which covers the way our state-funded and state-sponsored "human rights" commissions are being abused continually by these kind of situations, and the radical leftists running these commissions are only too eager to run out and prosecute people to justify their government-paid jobs.

[The Green Barbarian]

http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/shakedown.html

My new book about Canada's abusive human rights commissions, called Shakedown, will officially be released on March 24th.

I'm pretty excited about it: the informal feedback I've received from book reviewers who received early copies is pretty positive. It was a pleasure to write the book -- it's part of the fight to denormalize HRCs by winning the argument in the court of public opinion. The HRCs hate that: they prefer to operate in darkness, punctuated only by occasional cheerleading stories written about them by ideological dupes in the mainstream media. That era is over.

I'm particularly glad that Shakedown is being published by McClelland & Stewart, one of Canada's most prestigious publishers. Of course, going with a publisher like them will they ensure the book receives a wide distribution and strong publicity (I'll blog about the details of my international(!) book tour soon) so it will be read by "severely normal" Canadians, not just political junkies who surf the conservative blogosphere. That's important: this story has to break out from the political class and capture the imagination of Canadians in general.

It also says something about what's normal and what's not in Canada these days that someone with my strong views -- I believe in abolishing HRCs, not just reforming them -- is now normal enough to be published by the same publisher as Margaret Atwood and Mel Hurtig. It's not that M&S "agrees" with me; it's that they recognize my view is a legitimate one. It's the HRCs who are the extremists, the violators of civil liberties. I'm the liberal now.

It has been a challenge to refrain from blogging about so many of the stories and anecdotes I put in the book, but I showed that discipline so that regular readers of this blog would find the book new and worthwhile. Of course, the basic themes are ones that I cover regularly, but the stories and the details are new. I'm pretty excited about it. There are some absolutely crazy cases that will shock even regular readers of this blog, who are now surely numb to whatever new stupidity is cooked up by the HRCs.

The first person in the country to receive a review copy was Dan Cook, who besides blogging here, had me on the radio in Montreal. You can see a transcript of that talk on Roy Eappen's blog, and you can hear the audio here.

The first "official" book review in a newspaper of record is tomorrow's review in the Calgary Herald, by Nigel Hannaford. Attentive readers will know that Nigel has been fighting against the censorship powers of HRCs for a long time -- long before I ever became entangled in them.

Here is Nigel's blog, which contains a sneak preview of tomorrow's Herald review. Here are some of my favourite excerpts:


...Taking on the pugnacious Ezra is like wrestling with a hog: You both get dirty, but the hog enjoys it.

Anyway, Levant was duly charged with the boilerplate "publishing something likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt etc."

Shake Down is about what happened next.

Anybody with a western understanding of fair play will see red over what Levant reports: Politicized tribunals presided over by commissioners who, like Calgary alderman Diane Colley-Urquart, float freely across the borders between elected office and HRC panellist; state-paid prosecution of hapless defendants by complainants who never face the possibility of costs; no right of counter suit for malicious prosecution; no common-law defences allowed, no rules of evidence.

...The nub of the matter is in a foreword by Mark Steyn, himself no stranger to the political courts of Canada’s two-tier-justice system. Remarking on the now-famous encounter between Levant and a so-called human rights agent of the AHRC, (see YouTube,) Steyn writes, "At one point in her inquisition, after listening to Ezra’s musings on the outrageousness of what was happening, Agent McGovern looked blandly across the table and shrugged: ‘You’re entitled to your opinion, that’s for sure.’ If only."

Quite. If an Albertan is entitled to his opinion, why does he have to answer for it to a government agency?

...But, why "Shake Down?"

Well, I admit here at the Herald with our professional free-speech emphasis, actually a small part of what human rights commissions do, we sometimes overlook their staple trade; garden-variety opportunism. However, Ezra doesn’t and in a cross-country checkup, reveals such eye-rollers as a transvestite who won the right to counsel female rape victims, and a complaint by a Calgary hair stylist who complained to the AHRC that the girls he worked with called him a "loser" — not, to my knowledge, a prohibited ground of discrimination — and a quick review of Alberta cases shows severance agreements are creeping in.

...Shake Down. Read it. Get mad.

It's great to get a strong review like that. And it will be great to have hostile reviews by the three or four usual suspects in the HRC industry who still are unembarrassed to publicly defend these medieval-style star chambers.

A year ago I made the decision not to let the "lawfare" being waged against me turn me into a sour crank. I knew if my readers could help me cover my enormous legal bills, I could stay positive, knowing I had public support and that if we just kept writing the truth about the HRCs, we'd win in the court of public opinion in the end. My goal was to be, to borrow the title of Mark Steyn's column in National Review, a "happy warrior".

I think I've got that tonal balance in Shakedown. There's a good helping of outrage in there. But I think Canada's HRCs are even more laughable than they are outrageous. Frankly, it's easy to mock them.

My goal is to get the whole country laughing at them, destroying their false respectability, and pressuring governments to act to reform or repeal them.

I think it's going to work. (I predicted that 2009 would be the year when the first political reforms to HRCs would happen, and I stand by that prediction.)

You can get your copy of Shakedown from Amazon here, from Chapters here, and from Mark Steyn here (signed by him). Mark was kind enough to write a powerful introduction to the book. That introduction itself is worth the cover price itself.

If you do buy the book, drop me a line to let me know what you think of it. I'd love the feedback.

[Ford4x4Truck]

and you are assuming that there was homophobia here, and that's just wrong. You weren't there, you don't know, yet you immediately claim that it must have happened, and reach for the moral soapbox to denounce anyone who isn't immediately in agreement with siccing the taxpayer-funded "human rights" police on the Delta Grand.

I really don't appreciate the constant attacks. I'm "denouncing" people who write off alleged human rights issues as cases of hurt feelings. Doing so is basically mocking the Charter and the entire judicial system.

[sanfish]

*off topic remark removed*/ferri

[grammafreddy]

An injury can involve rights being denied. Human rights shouldn't be belittled - that's an extremely slippery slope.

yes - real human rights should not be belittled - like the right to own property, the right to a fair trial, the right to be given all the same advantages and freedoms Canada has to offer no matter your race, religion etc. Those are real human rights. "Hurt feelings" is a fake human right.

This doesn't make any sense. The right to equality based on sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what this article is about. You're making a biased assumption and trying to belittle the situation by saying it's simply about hurt feelings. Homophobia isn't something to be taken lightly.

I sorta agree with GB ... without having been there to see for myself, of course.

I absolutely agree with equality for all.

But there are just some people who will make a stink, be abusive and loud, drunk and disorderly in public, and then do something like what these two women did and, rather than man-up about the fact they acted like irresponsible drunken idiots, they decide it is about their "rights" rather than about being drunk and loud.

If it had been me in charge of the bar, I would have shut off the liquid tap and asked them to either tone it down or leave - and it would have nothing to do with their sexual orientation and the fact one kissed the other, but rather everything to do with acting like a couple of loud-mouthed twits in public and spoiling the enjoyment of the evening for the other patrons.

But I do admit, I can't stand loud drunk people - hurt feelings or not.