There are instances of Christian hotel owners facing discrimination claims because they do not wish to let double accomodation to same-sex couples. Information about one case can be found here.
But what happens when two opposite sex friends want to book hotel accomodation for a holiday? They are not married, so they try to book two separate rooms. They are both practicing Catholics, so one can say that their wish to book separate rooms arises from their religious beliefs.
In some places, they will come up against that phenomenon that is "single room supplement" - but twice, of course, once for each of the two rooms they book.
Elsewhere, they come across pricing regimes based exclusively on "per person sharing", and virtually doubling the cost for single occupancy of double or twin rooms.
At the very least, are we looking at indirect discrimination on grounds of religious belief?
Being practical about this: if you know anywhere in Co. Kerry that can accomodate two single people in two single rooms 14-19 July, could you drop contact details in the comments box (not for publication)?
4 comments:
I wouldn't say it is discrimination based on religious belief, because discrimination needs either specific intent or some discrepancy in treatment. A couple who will not share a room because one of them snores has exactly the same problem.
You probably know all this, but extra charges for single occupancy have to do with things like cleaning costs: if it's one person in the room, you still have to clean everything.
Another aspect is that the room is taken and can't be let out to a couple, which would bring in more money than a single, even with the charge. It's just economy. And a generous helping of free market.
(I went babbling here because hotels were the example subject in my secondary school economics class, and apparently I'm still wired to it - sorry! Please don't post about coffee beans or I will probably do a full recap on price elasticity and influence of local weather and politics on the world market...)
By the way, calling it a charge is just semantics: you could also list the "single" price as the base price and give couples a discount*. (You would still be, in practice, favouring people who prefer to share a room, of course.)
*I'm assuming most hotels don't do that for reasons concerned with marketing.
I can see the point about double rooms .... but the element of discrimination occurs, I think, when there is no provision of single rooms.
In its technical meaning, indirect discrimination doesn't need a direct intent to discriminate - just a policy or practice that affects a particular section of the population unfairly and without justifiable reason, even though by accident.
I'm sure I can find something to post about coffee beans ....
That is a very good point. It then comes down to mainly economics, I guess...
Have you looked at B&Bs? We put our conductors there on our choir/orchestra tour to England and Ireland, and they tended to be quite affordable.
When it comes to coffee, does your physicistness beat your Britishness? :) Or are British mathematicians machines that turn tea into theorems? (And does that have an effect on the nature of British mathematics? I wonder...)
Britishness definitely wins ... I am definitely a tea person.
Rumor had it, back in my student days, that one Cardinal John Henry drank 12 cups of tea a day ...
B+B's were the problem on the single room question. I suppose we might just have to face up to the fact that we are trying to go on holiday in July - we have usually done October and May ...
Post a Comment