Swinging New Years party, legal?

[jallman]

No hotel in their right mind is going to do it and they shouldn't have to. If people are acting inappropriately, they should be dealt with, and if they're being good boys and girls and staying in their room, it's nobody else's business what they are doing in there.

Now see, that is a fair compromise. I agree that it is on the guests to behave themselves in the public areas and if they dont, then it is the responsibility of the hotel to take care of the problem. However, I still dont see the problem with the disclosure of that information.

 

[jallman]

Reread the post, you obviously did not get it right. They are your children, so they are your responsibility. They are not the responsibility of the hotel or the other guests there.

No, the children themselves are the responsibility of the other guests. However, it is the responsibility of all guests to maintain a level of polite interaction that is conducive to the peaceful enjoyment of all guests when in the public areas. Argue it any way you want, missy, but the fact remains that there IS a standard for public presentation and behavior.

 

[Alex]

Too lazy? I don't know ANY parent who would be brave enough to tackle what an aborted fetus looks like to a 4 year old? how about 3? 7? Who are YOU to decide when a parent should discuss something with their child? After all, doesn't the child's maturity and ability to process said information come into play? THAT'S being a good parent... being able to know your child well enough to know WHEN is the time they can HANDLE said information.

And why should my rights be put into question just because you decide to have children? You have the children, so you take care of them. Not my responsibility. I will act as I see fit whether children are present or not. If your child happens to see something that you do not approve of, then it is your responsibility to discuss it with them.

Thank the stars my parents were not so lazy and over-protective. When I saw something and had questions about it, they honestly answered. Not once did I ever hear, "You're too young to understand." That is the best kind of parenting. They did not step on anyone else's rights in order to be parents.

 

[Kelzie]

Now see, that is a fair compromise. I agree that it is on the guests to behave themselves in the public areas and if they dont, then it is the responsibility of the hotel to take care of the problem. However, I still dont see the problem with the disclosure of that information.

Okay, here's a little example. I used to work at a hotel in CA, and we had an Indian convention (horrible tippers, by the way). While the young adults would party down in the bar, the fathers would be in the banquet room setting up arranged marriages. Now, do you think that these men, who brought several hundred thousand dollars worth of business to the hotel, would have appreciated having "Attention all guests. In ball room A there is a conference of Indians selling their children. If this sort of thing makes you uncomfortable, we respectfully ask that you avoid the area." broadcasted over the intercom? I'm thinking no. People go to hotels to meet. Not to have their intentions broadcasted to the rest of the guests.

 

[Kelzie]

And why should my rights be put into question just because you decide to have children? You have the children, so you take care of them. Not my responsibility. I will act as I see fit whether children are present or not. If your child happens to see something that you do not approve of, then it is your responsibility to discuss it with them.

Thank the stars my parents were not so lazy and over-protective. When I saw something and had questions about it, they honestly answered. Not once did I ever hear, "You're too young to understand." That is the best kind of parenting. They did not step on anyone else's rights in order to be parents.

Except people do not have the right to go around flashing people their breasts. I agree that if people act within the law, it is the parents responsibility to control how much their child sees, but if people break the law, it is their responsibility to curb their behavior.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I've already said that if gay couples are engaged in lewd actions in public they should be punished. Unless you are suggesting that being gay itself is a threat to family values?

No, far from it. What I'm saying is that this is a situation where the horse should be locked in the barn, namely that punishment doesn't help where a simple advance warning is more than sufficient.

Take Disneyland for example. Some people spend thousands of dollars to go on vacation in Los Angeles, and D-land is one of the highlights. Some travel planner in Tokyo would be greatly relieved if he knew that he should schedule the tour of Hollyweird on Tuesday and then send his group to Disneyland on Wednesday because Disneyland kindly posted that Tuesday was the Gay Day, thus saving that poor travel planner endless apologies to outraged Japanese families for the intimate look at American culture they received when visiting Mickey's House.

Even for me, who can just drive over whenever I want, if I find out that it's special day at Disneyland only after I go through the gates, I'd have to judge between wasting $200 AND explaining to the kids why I suddenly decided Knott's Berry Farm was the in place, or run the risk of them viewing totally inappropriate behaviors. But a simple warning would eliminate the risk to me, and wouldn't cost them any money at all.

But hey, Disneyland is a business, it's up to the owners to make the decisions, and I and everyone else have to decide if that's what we want. I'm headed for the Monterey Acquarium for my daughter's spring break anyway.

 

[jallman]

And why should my rights be put into question just because you decide to have children? You have the children, so you take care of them. Not my responsibility. I will act as I see fit whether children are present or not. If your child happens to see something that you do not approve of, then it is your responsibility to discuss it with them.

Thank the stars my parents were not so lazy and over-protective. When I saw something and had questions about it, they honestly answered. Not once did I ever hear, "You're too young to understand." That is the best kind of parenting. They did not step on anyone else's rights in order to be parents.

Well I am elated that your parents were so open because my parents were very much the same way. However, it is not your right based on your parent's success to force, through intrusive expression, the same methodology on other parents. There is a very complex bond between the parent and the child and a level of trust that determines the rate of exposure for a child based on maturity. No one gets to decide that except the parent and perhaps the rebellious child when the parent is being clearly over-protective.

Why do you feel that your freedom of expression is so important that it cant be relegated to a proper time and place in exchange for the freedom to maintain the parental bond's integrity?

 

[Deegan]

It was a poor judgment call by the hotel employee that set up the two together, but it's a free country. I would suspect that they could have asked for their money back, but then it would have been difficult to arrange another meeting. I assume that the hotel lost a few customers, and hopefully learned a lesson.

 

[Kelzie]

No, far from it. What I'm saying is that this is a situation where the horse should be locked in the barn, namely that punishment doesn't help where a simple advance warning is more than sufficient.

Take Disneyland for example. Some people spend thousands of dollars to go on vacation in Los Angeles, and D-land is one of the highlights. Some travel planner in Tokyo would be greatly relieved if he knew that he should schedule the tour of Hollyweird on Tuesday and then send his group to Disneyland on Wednesday because Disneyland kindly posted that Tuesday was the Gay Day, thus saving that poor travel planner endless apologies to outraged Japanese families for the intimate look at American culture they received when visiting Mickey's House.

Even for me, who can just drive over whenever I want, if I find out that it's special day at Disneyland only after I go through the gates, I'd have to judge between wasting $200 AND explaining to the kids why I suddenly decided Knott's Berry Farm was the in place, or run the risk of them viewing totally inappropriate behaviors. But a simple warning would eliminate the risk to me, and wouldn't cost them any money at all.

But hey, Disneyland is a business, it's up to the owners to make the decisions, and I and everyone else have to decide if that's what we want. I'm headed for the Monterey Acquarium for my daughter's spring break anyway.

You're missing the point. If the gay people are acting wrongly, that is something that should be dealt with. However, if they are behaving like law abiding citizens, somebody's phobia does not give them the right to know when the gays are meeting in Disneyland.

 

[Alex]

No, the children themselves are the responsibility of the other guests. However, it is the responsibility of all guests to maintain a level of polite interaction that is conducive to the peaceful enjoyment of all guests when in the public areas. Argue it any way you want, missy, but the fact remains that there IS a standard for public presentation and behavior.

Just because there is a standard does not make it right. Just because the majority want something done does not make it right. Slavery is a good example of this. Just becuase society has strong feelings against something does not make it right. The Salem Witch Trials and burnings are good examples of this. Society as a whole can be very irrational and lazy. They do not want something and believe it must be abolished simply because they want it that way.

You have yet to explain what harm is brought to your children when seeing a naked body.

 

[jallman]

Okay, here's a little example. I used to work at a hotel in CA, and we had an Indian convention (horrible tippers, by the way). While the young adults would party down in the bar, the fathers would be in the banquet room setting up arranged marriages. Now, do you think that these men, who brought several hundred thousand dollars worth of business to the hotel, would have appreciated having "Attention all guests. In ball room A there is a conference of Indians selling their children. If this sort of thing makes you uncomfortable, we respectfully ask that you avoid the area." broadcasted over the intercom? I'm thinking no. People go to hotels to meet. Not to have their intentions broadcasted to the rest of the guests.

Kelzie, I expect so much more from you than this absurd hypothetical. First of all, the arrangement of marriages is a cultural event to Indians (so I assume you are talking about dots and not scalpers based on the tipping comment). This marriage arrangement was hardly involved the possible display of nudity or drunken lasciviousness (Dots do tend to make up in politeness what they lack in calculating 15 percent). However, the disclosure, if necessary would not be made over an intercom...but rather in the daily announcements on the message greeting or to the guests who call something along the lines:

This weekend the our facility is proudly hosting ________, a cultural interest group for our Asian Indian community. Please respect the reservation of ballroom C for their enjoyment and use this weekend.

Nothing rude...nothing invading privacy...and says everything that needs to be said so that if by some chance someone has a dot phobia, then they know to stay away.

 

[jallman]

Just because there is a standard does not make it right. Just because the majority want something done does not make it right. Slavery is a good example of this. Just becuase society has strong feelings against something does not make it right. The Salem Witch Trials and burnings are good examples of this. Society as a whole can be very irrational and lazy. They do not want something and believe it must be abolished simply because they want it that way.

You have yet to explain what harm is brought to your children when seeing a naked body.

Who said anything about abolishment? I simply stated that in the interest of respecting EVERYONE's right to expression or even freedom FROM expression if they so choose, there are social rules that define casual interaction. There is nothing wrong or lazy about this. Some religions have taboos about seeing the naked form...are you going to say that our muslim peers should have their religion infringed upon because you want to show your ****? They dont ask you to cover yourself any further, they just accept the social parameters for dress and move on. Why cant you do the same?

I dont have to explain at all why seeing the nude form is harmful to a child. If it is my child, all I need say is that I dont want them seeing it until I feel the maturity is there...and thankfully, because we are a respectful and inclusive society, fringe behavior like nudism is relegated to an appropriate place where nudists can enjoy their freedoms and I can enjoy the freedom to raise a child according to our own mutual sensibilities.

 

[Kelzie]

Kelzie, I expect so much more from you than this absurd hypothetical. First of all, the arrangement of marriages is a cultural event to Indians (so I assume you are talking about dots and not scalpers based on the tipping comment). This marriage arrangement was hardly involved the possible display of nudity or drunken lasciviousness (Dots do tend to make up in politeness what they lack in calculating 15 percent). However, the disclosure, if necessary would not be made over an intercom...but rather in the daily announcements on the message greeting or to the guests who call something along the lines:

This weekend the our facility is proudly hosting ________, a cultural interest group for our Asian Indian community. Please respect the reservation of ballroom C for their enjoyment and use this weekend.

Nothing rude...nothing invading privacy...and says everything that needs to be said so that if by some chance someone has a dot phobia, then they know to stay away.

Well the situation wasn't hypothetical and I hate it when people say that. Quite possibly one of the meanest things people say. "Well, I did think you were pretty smart, but now cause of this one thing, I'm going to have to say you're kinda dumb." Now I have to deal with not only disappointing you, but an insult as well. I really thought better of you jallman. :lol:

Anyway, as I was saying, people booking hotel meeting rooms don't always want other people to know. And it's nobody else's business. How exactly would you phrase the announcement for a swingers group? Or a Nazi group? As long as the group is behaving well, there is no reason to betray their privacy. Which hotels value above anything else.

 

[Alex]

Well I am elated that your parents were so open because my parents were very much the same way. However, it is not your right based on your parent's success to force, through intrusive expression, the same methodology on other parents. There is a very complex bond between the parent and the child and a level of trust that determines the rate of exposure for a child based on maturity. No one gets to decide that except the parent and perhaps the rebellious child when the parent is being clearly over-protective.

Why do you feel that your freedom of expression is so important that it cant be relegated to a proper time and place in exchange for the freedom to maintain the parental bond's integrity?

Freedom of expression is one of the most important aspects of our society and therefore I believe it is more important than family. All people want the right to free expression. People can reject family. Countless people live very happy and fulfilling lives without starting a family. That is not as possible without free speech and that is why it is more important. I am not saying that family is not at all important. For some, it is very much so and because of basic freedoms, they can have it, or reject it. But basic freedoms come first.

 

[Alex]

Kelzie, I expect so much more from you than this absurd hypothetical. First of all, the arrangement of marriages is a cultural event to Indians (so I assume you are talking about dots and not scalpers based on the tipping comment). This marriage arrangement was hardly involved the possible display of nudity or drunken lasciviousness (Dots do tend to make up in politeness what they lack in calculating 15 percent). However, the disclosure, if necessary would not be made over an intercom...but rather in the daily announcements on the message greeting or to the guests who call something along the lines:

This weekend the our facility is proudly hosting ________, a cultural interest group for our Asian Indian community. Please respect the reservation of ballroom C for their enjoyment and use this weekend.

Nothing rude...nothing invading privacy...and says everything that needs to be said so that if by some chance someone has a dot phobia, then they know to stay away.

Nudity and drinking are very much a part of gay culture. Are people so narrow minded that they cannot comprehend that? So you believe some cultures are more important than others? I know several women who would be very offended by being in the same hotel where marriages are being arranged. Should hotels have to announce everything or only the issues you have a problem with?

 

[jallman]

Well the situation wasn't hypothetical and I hate it when people say that. Quite possibly one of the meanest things people say. "Well, I did think you were pretty smart, but now cause of this one thing, I'm going to have to say you're kinda dumb." Now I have to deal with not only disappointing you, but an insult as well. I really thought better of you jallman. :lol:

Anyway, as I was saying, people booking hotel meeting rooms don't always want other people to know. And it's nobody else's business. How exactly would you phrase the announcement for a swingers group? Or a Nazi group? As long as the group is behaving well, there is no reason to betray their privacy. Which hotels value above anything else.

There was no insult intended at all...I was just shocked that you used such a blatantly self-serving example of an announcement knowing that it would not possibly be made in that way.

And I beg to differ...any group that is going to reserve a hotel ballroom is not so concerned about privacy issues. Its not like they are renting a hotel room with cash for a few hours...lets be real. But lets take more of your examples:

Swinger Group: This weekend we will be hosting a couples group with an adult focus. We will be reserving floors 6, 7, and 8 for adults only.

As for your nazi group, I am of a mind to say that no respectable establishment will host such a volatile group. If they did and I found out while I was there, my anger would be unmatched. There comes a liability to disclose the potential hazards of co-mingling with such trash.

 

[Alex]

Who said anything about abolishment? I simply stated that in the interest of respecting EVERYONE's right to expression or even freedom FROM expression if they so choose, there are social rules that define casual interaction. There is nothing wrong or lazy about this. Some religions have taboos about seeing the naked form...are you going to say that our muslim peers should have their religion infringed upon because you want to show your ****? They dont ask you to cover yourself any further, they just accept the social parameters for dress and move on. Why cant you do the same?

I dont have to explain at all why seeing the nude form is harmful to a child. If it is my child, all I need say is that I dont want them seeing it until I feel the maturity is there...and thankfully, because we are a respectful and inclusive society, fringe behavior like nudism is relegated to an appropriate place where nudists can enjoy their freedoms and I can enjoy the freedom to raise a child according to our own mutual sensibilities.

Seems like the actions of a dictator and not a parent.

 

[Kelzie]

There was no insult intended at all...I was just shocked that you used such a blatantly self-serving example of an announcement knowing that it would not possibly be made in that way.

And I beg to differ...any group that is going to reserve a hotel ballroom is not so concerned about privacy issues. Its not like they are renting a hotel room with cash for a few hours...lets be real. But lets take more of your examples:

Swinger Group: This weekend we will be hosting a couples group with an adult focus. We will be reserving floors 6, 7, and 8 for adults only.

As for your nazi group, I am of a mind to say that no respectable establishment will host such a volatile group. If they did and I found out while I was there, my anger would be unmatched. There comes a liability to disclose the potential hazards of co-mingling with such trash.

That's not private. Anyone with half a brain would know what's going on.


I don't know what people's big problem with Nazis is. Sure their views suck, but I think a lot of people's views suck. I certainly would have no problem if they had an event at the hotel I was staying at.

 

[shuamort]

Alright, I'm going to dispel some ignorance about gayday at Disneyworld here that will hopefully make the point moot and get back to the crazy straight people at the hotel ;-)

Ok, for one, I've been there for the event. My partner asked me if I wanted to go to Disneyworld and I jumped up and down like Tigger and we went. This was about 8 years ago. On the plane he casually mentioned that it was going to be "gayday" when we were there. :roll: He was more into the whole scene than I was so I was a little peeved. The glbt crowd was out in full force, one could tell because red was the tell-all color to wear.

What'd I see, hand holding, some kissing (not full on making out, but the pecks and smooches that are de rigeur of the heterosexual counterparts), and the freakin' kilts (oh, how I hate the kilts.) And that was it. In the end, it was actually nice to be in a social environment and feel comfortable enough to hold hands. It definitely wasn't something common to do in regular public times.

What's important to know is that Disney has not sponsored the annual event.

Does Disney sponsor Gay Day?

No. Disney is an "innocent victim" of circumstance. They managed to create an excellent vacation resort that appeals to almost everybody in the world, and gay and lesbian folks are no different. Because they get so much attention from all factions over Gay Day, Disney actually goes out of their way not to do things that are perceived as catering towards Gay Day. This is unlike any other time of the year when Disney will actively market towards specific, targeted groups to increase their attendance at Disney properties. If Disney really didn't do anything different during Gay Day than they do any other time of the year, they would advertise to the Gay and Lesbian market and they would actively seek to book entertainment appealing to the gay and lesbian crowds. Gay Day is now the busiest time of year at Disney, and the highest revenue producing time of year as well for Disney's parks and attractions.

By the way, Disney does actively sponsor and promote "Night Of Joy," a private event at The Magic Kingdom that is marketed towards Christians and actively sold through church groups. Off the record (and sometimes on the record), a very large number of Disney cast members have related hundreds of horror stories about the rudeness and bad attitude of many guests at Night Of Joy. It's an amusing contrast to Gay Day, when even the most homophobic cast members often really enjoy the fun and friendly atmosphere all over Disney property during Gay Day weekend.

And for the bigots:

I heard in previous years Disney let everyone move between parks on Gay Day even if their ticket did not usually permit it. Is this true? Do I have to pay more money for a Park Hopper ticket if I want to move between parks on the same day?

Yes, it's true. Because of the anticipated increase in complaints from some more closed-minded guests who unknowingly found themselves amidst tens of thousands of gay men and women, Disney has in the past chosen to simply relax their park hopping rules. This freed up management from having to issue replacement tickets to those guests who were complaining; they could simply tell the guest they were free to move to another park. However (and this is a big HOWEVER), this is never a guarantee that Disney will continue this practice. In fact, as more people become aware of this, it is likely Disney will discontinue it so that they avoid having people take advantage of it without paying for the privilege. So if you are going to plan to move between parks on the same day, please purchase the correct ticket that allows such movement. This guarantees you the freedom to do so. Don't expect that you will be able to move around the parks with a ticket that does not permit it. In the end, you may find you can, but consider it an extra bonus, not a definite guaranteed privilege.

We'd really like to see Disney either end this practice entirely or to make it officially known in advance. It's unfair that people who didn't pay for a privilege receive it, especially as those people usually getting the benefit of it are those that are most antagonistic towards other guests. If you see this is taking place, and you paid extra for a ticket so you could have this privilege, you might consider visiting guest relations and asking for a refund of the difference, just to make your point.

 

[Kelzie]

Seems like the actions of a dictator and not a parent.

Hey whoa now. Hold on a sec. Parent not allowing their child to see nudity displayed in a sexual manner until they are old enough to handle it are dictators? So parent should let their four year old daughter watch some guy jerk off?

 

[Kelzie]

Alright, I'm going to dispel some ignorance about gayday at Disneyworld here that will hopefully make the point moot and get back to the crazy straight people at the hotel ;-)

Ok, for one, I've been there for the event. My partner asked me if I wanted to go to Disneyworld and I jumped up and down like Tigger and we went. This was about 8 years ago. On the plane he casually mentioned that it was going to be "gayday" when we were there. :roll: He was more into the whole scene than I was so I was a little peeved. The glbt crowd was out in full force, one could tell because red was the tell-all color to wear.

What'd I see, hand holding, some kissing (not full on making out, but the pecks and smooches that are de rigeur of the heterosexual counterparts), and the freakin' kilts (oh, how I hate the kilts.) And that was it. In the end, it was actually nice to be in a social environment and feel comfortable enough to hold hands. It definitely wasn't something common to do in regular public times.

What's important to know is that Disney has not sponsored the annual event.

And for the bigots:

God people suck. :roll: Who gives a rats ass?

 

[jallman]

Nudity and drinking are very much a part of gay culture. Are people so narrow minded that they cannot comprehend that? So you believe some cultures are more important than others? I know several women who would be very offended by being in the same hotel where marriages are being arranged. Should hotels have to announce everything or only the issues you have a problem with?

Well now thats quite the attack there at the end, but I'm game. I believe all cultures are important and worthy of respect. And I am not sure if you know or not, but I am a gay man. I appreciate nudity and drinking and revelry as much as any other gay man. HOWEVER, I also respect the value of family and parental guidance and all the things that make up the building blocks of the "other" side of our society. Its about respect and virtue and honoring the places we all come from and further honoring the places we know nothing about. Part of that respect is curbing your behaviors until the proper time and place. Period. I am not promoting some naziesque pattern of oppression nor am I saying anything innovative or hard to comprehend. I am simply reiterating that there are many facets of our society and in the interest of peaceful enjoyment, everyone should be well equipped before potentially finding themselves or those they have guardianship of in an uncomfortable or morally objectionable situation. Its not deep philosophy we're discussing here...its simple respect.

 

[shuamort]

God people suck. :roll: Who gives a rats ass?

Ouch, that's the last time I post a personal story here.

 

[Kelzie]

Ouch, that's the last time I post a personal story here.

:rofl :mrgreen: Not you, you dope. The people that bitched so much that Disneyland has to let them go wherever they want. Sorry. I should have been more clear. :lol: Then again, I would hope that you know me well enough to know that I would never say that about you. Well, to your face anyway....

 

[jallman]

That's not private. Anyone with half a brain would know what's going on.


I don't know what people's big problem with Nazis is. Sure their views suck, but I think a lot of people's views suck. I certainly would have no problem if they had an event at the hotel I was staying at.

The problem with Nazis is not their beliefs on paper...it is the pattern of violence and antagonism that usually comes along with the philosophy. I'm sorry, but I will not apologize for the wary disposition I have toward people who carry such a murderous intent for an entire population.

And as for your first comment...anyone with half a brain WOULD know what was going on and could make a decision right then and there if they wanted to risk their child sneaking off to those floors. I'm not saying the swingers wouldnt send them packing, but there is still the right to either curb the chance or allow the room for the error in judgement.