The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Hoteliers should have the right to refuse the custom of undesirable guests

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,364 times Debate No: 26373
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




If a couple of stinking, flea-bitten tramps find a big wad of cash under a bush and decide to check-in to the Hotel de Posh for the night, it is likely that the hotel staff would turn them away. Why? Well, because the sight of two vagabonds scoffing big plates of grub in the hotel's opulent restaurant or supping copious amounts of booze in the cocktail lounge is likely to deter other guests from spending money in those facilities, and their presence might also damage the hotel's reputation.

So, if the hotel would be justified in turning away tramps, what about a couple of shaven-headed, heavily-tattooed yobs? I'm sure they would be about as welcome as a ginger son-in-law and, as such, the hotel would be justified in ejecting them from the premises.

But what if those yobs happened to be gay? Should a hotel be allowed to turn them away then? The answer would seem to be "no", at least if the hotel is located in the UK where, yesterday, two gay men who had been turned away at a small family-run hotel won compensation in court for "injury to feelings". (1)

It may well have been the case that the owners of the hotel in question were bigoted Christians who turned the homosexual couple away on religious grounds, but that shouldn't have meant that they didn't have the right to refuse their custom, no matter what reason they gave.

Thank you.


The opponent clearly missed the premise of his own arguments.


Two rancid, uncultured she-hounds from the depth of London's sewers staggered into one of Britain's best hotel. Most likely, the two heffers visited one of the following posh locations:

11. Hole of Horcum, North Yorkshire - The Horsenut Bed and Breakfast
10. Slag Lane, Merseyside - The Queen's Bosom
9. Shitterton, Dorset - Sheep Shagger Inn
8. Back Passage, London - Holiday Inn Express
7. Fingringhoe, Essex - The Wet Noodle Motel
6. Muff, Northern Ireland - La Quinta
5. Sandy Balls, Hampshire - The Outhouse Pub and Inn
4. Twatt, Orkney - Clam Hotel
3. Bell End, Birmingham - The InnTown Suites
2. Minge Lane, Worcestershire - Yer Mudders House
1. Cocks, Cornwall - Dank Alley Inn

Let's assume that the Innkeeper tossed the two trollips on their spunky bottoms because their mere presence upset the Customers.

Can we not conclude that the Hotel is catering to target customer base?
In this case, the customer base is "affluent, desirable men and women who aren't Irish or darker than a Spaniard".

Now, we could assume that the Hotel owners are biggoted Christians, but I would much more presume that the Hotel's target customer base is biggoted Christians. The owners are probably Turkish immigrants.

Therefore I present Premise 1:

Any buisness that can legally filter clients to maintain a target customer base has no moral obligation to buffer it's filter for those who are....light in the loafers.

Over to you....
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for posting a rather interesting rebuttal.

If I read my opponent's contribution correctly, he makes the point that, with hotels, it's "horses for courses" that is to say, various types of hotels cater for various types of clientele. I broadly agree with this.

For example: Christians planning their next vacation might like to consider The Pleasaunce Hotel on the east coast of England. There's no pool, no fairground rides, no amusement arcades, no foam parties, no spa, no gym, no watersports facilities but the hotel does offer thrill-seeking Christian families "safe, modern play areas for children, and delightful gardens in which to stroll, sit or enjoy the peaceful surroundings of the rose garden, or to lose oneself in a book in a sunny corner of the sunken garden, or in the sheltered cloisters, with just the sound of the sea & the birds as one"s sole accompaniment." And if all that excitement is not enough, although there's no bar, casino or nightclub, in the evenings guests can go wild playing table tennis or completing one of the hotel's "huge" jigsaw puzzles. Best of all, from the point of view of conservative English guests, there"s no swarthy waiters serving strange foreign food while chatting up their daughters (mainly because there's no restaurant). (1)

However, I fear this genteel resort might not be the ideal choice for people who normally take their vacations in destinations such as Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Cap d'Agde, Ibiza, Pattaya or Hong Kong, just as a conservative Christian couples might not be comfortable staying at Hedonism II in Jamaica where people frolic naked on the beach and engage is wild orgies in the pool. (2)

So, we can see if the two gay skinheads with the tattoos checked-in to The Pleasaunce Hotel and every night brought in bottles of vodka and takeaway curries, got drunk, sniffed poppers, volubly discussed the merits of various sex toys and sang "YMCA" and "It"s Raining Men" at the tops of their voices while the other residents read Bible stories, did jigsaw puzzles or tried to concentrate on their needlework, basket-weaving and flower-pressing, the gay couple would probably attract some complaints and the hotel management might well ask them to leave.

If the hotel did chuck them out, though, it would not be because they were gay, just that they were deemed "undesirable" by that particular establishment they should have the right to refuse their custom.

Thank you.



Before I proceed, I’d like to form a sentence using the British troglodyte colloquialism.

“You’ve just been full of beans. I dare say you seemed quite fruity. In fact, you cocked up only a few times and that’s quite impressive for such a shambolic novice. Continue in your queer ways, and worry not that you been soundly flogged, Arse over tit.” [1]

Final Rebuttal:

My opponent proposes that a restaurant with a Christian customer base can evict a client on the following violations:

  • Eating take-out Indian food

  • Drinking Alcohol

  • Snorting Drugs

  • Loudly discussing sex toys

  • Singing Satanic anthems

Presumably, the following are traits of being a “desirable” consumer:

  • Being openly Gay

  • Having a shaved head

  • Displaying Tattoos

Hough Grant said: “If the hotel did chuck them out, though, it would not be because they were gay, just that they were deemed "undesirable" by that particular establishment they should have the right to refuse their custom.”

Rebuttal: My opponent has failed to prove that being gay is desirable, or at the very least not undesirable. Simply stating as an axiom: “We can kick out undesirables, but not Gays”, presumes that being Gay is desirable. While I much suspected that Pro desires to be Gay, or at the least he does not find the idea of being Gay undesirable, it serves little purpose to his cause.

If undesirables can be denied service, then we must define “undesirable”.

I clearly defined that the Hotel desires a Christian customer base; therefor the rainbow brigade is not desired.

Thus, the Lollipop Platoon can be denied service as long as they meet the condition of being “undesirable”.

I find my opponent conceded this point, since he failed to prove that being a queer bit funny is “desirable”, or at least not undesirable.

I rest my case. Tally Ho, don’t vote for Pro.; [1]

Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
What is this I don't even....
Posted by magikkell 4 years ago
I don't even
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
I'll tell you what's wrong on so many levels: having sex in a multi-storey car park!
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
British Humor is like eating a frozen pickle. Wrong on soooo many levels.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
My opponent reminds me of someone, I can't think who, but he must be an American because he certainly has a fine set of teeth.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not quite sure how to vote because both sides made convincing arguments, however I will say that this debate has encouraged me to move to Cornwall.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: excellent debate, very funny, I thought good material was presented from both sides, so in my opinion, I can't really call a winner.