We only heard from one side of the story. What does the hotel has to say? I don't know... It seems to me things aren't that simple, it just doesn't add up. I will bet there is more into this story than we know, I will withold judgement until I hear from the other side.

Interesting enough that MapleLeaf would bring up this topic of 'Reverse Discrimination'. For the sake of argument, let's assume the hotel was indeed discriminatory [on the basis of the guests' sexual orientation], it reminds me of the situation of French Canadians in Canada. For over 2 centuries, the French Canadians lived as a minority within the English Canada. Up until the 1960's, they could barely maintained their culture or language as English is pretty much mandatory for business and living. Now that they have a strong self-governing ability [through the Quebec Government], they have since then written laws that, in my view, discriminate against the English speaking minority within Quebec such as children must go to French schools, dispaly of commercial signs must be predominantly French (used to be French only) and French is the only official language. They also set up 'language police' which basically harass small business owners who aren't French speaking, forcing them to have at least one full-time employee who is French speaking or when their commercial displays aren't conformed to the French supermacy.

The point is, if you talk to some Quebecers, who are mostly very liberal and perhaps, some of the most tolerant of diversity on this planet judging from their support for equality against gender, race, sexual orientation discriminations and etc, you'd hear that they recognize that the current Quebec laws might be somewhat unfair to the English minority. BUT, it's merely a small 'payback' compared to the oppression of the English majority during the last few centuries.

My question is: "Can an oppressed minority not feel the need to protect its uniqueness, cultural identity and vulnerable position through an inherently discriminatory measure?" I am not sure, I'd like hear what you guys think.

From a Canadian Constitutional point of view, Section I of the Constitution suggests that a discrimination would be acceptable if it can be justified on the ground of societal interests. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the Quebec language law is unconstitutional but the province circum that ruling through a temporary 'Notwithstanding clause' which has to be renewed every 5 years. In the case of this Key West hotel, I think depending on how they justify it, the discrimination could be acceptable, especially when it deals with private business.