Homophobia at the HIX AGP
Jul 29, 2019, 12:37 pm
#61
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 50
I think the OP conversed with the receptionist in Spanish, but this still looks like a miscommunication.
Families and couples are different concepts and its likely the hotel took it upon itself to allocate individuals travelling together to twim-bedded rooms, saving the rooms equipped with a double bed + sofa bed to families.
The reservation team shouldn't override a booked bed preference, so that would have been a bad move: but there's no evidence it was done with any malicious intent to keep two men in separate beds.
The intransigence of the reception agent is puzzling, and its pleasing the hotel manager was quick to offer a remedy to the mismatch between room booked and room allocated. I'm sure the manager will ensure the receptionist gets appropriate training in social and communication skills.
Just a pity the OP seemed intent on suffering his victimhood: surely better to be gracious, accept an apology, enjoy the double bed and get on with your holiday.
Honestly, it seems unlikely that a hotel or indeed an individual receptionist would seek to promote an outdated (and illegal) moral code on the Costa del Sol.
Families and couples are different concepts and its likely the hotel took it upon itself to allocate individuals travelling together to twim-bedded rooms, saving the rooms equipped with a double bed + sofa bed to families.
The reservation team shouldn't override a booked bed preference, so that would have been a bad move: but there's no evidence it was done with any malicious intent to keep two men in separate beds.
The intransigence of the reception agent is puzzling, and its pleasing the hotel manager was quick to offer a remedy to the mismatch between room booked and room allocated. I'm sure the manager will ensure the receptionist gets appropriate training in social and communication skills.
Just a pity the OP seemed intent on suffering his victimhood: surely better to be gracious, accept an apology, enjoy the double bed and get on with your holiday.
Honestly, it seems unlikely that a hotel or indeed an individual receptionist would seek to promote an outdated (and illegal) moral code on the Costa del Sol.
Jul 29, 2019, 12:55 pm
#62
Join Date: Nov 2013
Programs: AA Lifetime Platinum; Amex Plat; Four Seasons; Fairmont; HH; etc.; "Retirees-In-Training"
Posts: 658
For those quote the definition of FAMILY, I would like to invite them to see what Oxford explained what is family:
So it is very clear, according to 1.1, A group of people related by blood or marriage, are FAMILY. Whether there are children or not, as long as you are related by blood, or marriage, you are family members.
If the reception said, these rooms are for family with children, it is more acceptable but still a big lie. If the reception said rooms are reserved for families, you can not deny people who are related as a family. So, if there are two adult with their grandchildren, would reception deny them as they are not 'parents', so there are not family if you look at the family definition narrowly.
If you look further, look at the origin of the word. Oxford thinks FAMILY [denoting the [b]servants of a household or the retinue of a nobleman]. So even at the very begining, FAMILY was not confined to papa, mama and children.
You can not deny any married couple for being in a FAMILY because they have not produced child. Because, FAMILY ties are through blood and marriage.
It is evidently the reception had not done any training on this issue. Maybe she had no idea by separating the two happily married man from other married couple with children is a form of discrimination. Whether this is discrimination against couple without children, or against same sex couples, I think it could be debated. But the hard truth is, she did not handle the situation well and her language was not politically nor socially correct.
Regardless what is your view on definition of TRADITIONAL FAMILY and MARRIAGE, it should not matter. The law is here to protect people not get discriminated against on the ground of sex or other social status. OP is denied a double bed because the reception made a judgement that the married couple should not have slept on a double bed, that is discrimination. The reception had a choice, she could say they were busy tonight and needed the room for family with children, which is not discrimination even if it is a lie. But the logic of 2 men in a room should not have a double bed room because this two married men is not her definition of FAMILY, that is wrong.
So it is very clear, according to 1.1, A group of people related by blood or marriage, are FAMILY. Whether there are children or not, as long as you are related by blood, or marriage, you are family members.
If the reception said, these rooms are for family with children, it is more acceptable but still a big lie. If the reception said rooms are reserved for families, you can not deny people who are related as a family. So, if there are two adult with their grandchildren, would reception deny them as they are not 'parents', so there are not family if you look at the family definition narrowly.
If you look further, look at the origin of the word. Oxford thinks FAMILY [denoting the [b]servants of a household or the retinue of a nobleman]. So even at the very begining, FAMILY was not confined to papa, mama and children.
You can not deny any married couple for being in a FAMILY because they have not produced child. Because, FAMILY ties are through blood and marriage.
It is evidently the reception had not done any training on this issue. Maybe she had no idea by separating the two happily married man from other married couple with children is a form of discrimination. Whether this is discrimination against couple without children, or against same sex couples, I think it could be debated. But the hard truth is, she did not handle the situation well and her language was not politically nor socially correct.
Regardless what is your view on definition of TRADITIONAL FAMILY and MARRIAGE, it should not matter. The law is here to protect people not get discriminated against on the ground of sex or other social status. OP is denied a double bed because the reception made a judgement that the married couple should not have slept on a double bed, that is discrimination. The reception had a choice, she could say they were busy tonight and needed the room for family with children, which is not discrimination even if it is a lie. But the logic of 2 men in a room should not have a double bed room because this two married men is not her definition of FAMILY, that is wrong.
Full stop.
GC
Jul 29, 2019, 1:19 pm
#63
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Global Entry
Posts: 2,862
OP is denied a double bed because the reception made a judgement that the married couple should not have slept on a double bed, that is discrimination. The reception had a choice, she could say they were busy tonight and needed the room for family with children, which is not discrimination even if it is a lie. But the logic of 2 men in a room should not have a double bed room because this two married men is not her definition of FAMILY, that is wrong.
Jul 29, 2019, 2:09 pm
#64
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: EWR
Programs: AA, Delta, NWA,HHonors, Hyatt BF
Posts: 1,762
So...IHG or this specific hotel has a written "policy" on all this?
Jul 29, 2019, 3:03 pm
#65
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
Jul 29, 2019, 3:31 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
I certainly would agree that any two adults traveling without kids or a third adult should be second in line for rooms with a sofa bed. There is no "must" involved at the side of the hotel and I am not aware of any statute backing your "must". If the hotel expects families or a room occupancy of three, than it is nothing but normal that they spare the rooms with a sofa bed. Shouting "discrimination" at whatever opportunity given shows a certain attitude.
Jul 29, 2019, 3:34 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
This had, however, nothing to do with discrimination but with breach of contract. And trying to spice such breach with a discrimination touch is nothing but bad style.
Full stop.
Jul 29, 2019, 3:37 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
Jul 29, 2019, 3:49 pm
#69
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
So many arguments pro and con but did you guys try to simulate a booking? I did. For 2 adults and 2 kids, the system only suggests “1 double bed with sofa bed”.
For 2 adults (with no kids) the system suggests “1 double bed with sofa bed” or “1 standard” (without specifying double or twin).
This means two adults can choose between the two room types when making a reservation.
The OP chose “1 double bed with sofa bed” and the system allowed the booking. This means the system does not “reserve” these “1 double bed with sofa bed” rooms for families with kids only. Being told otherwise at check-in is clearly BS.
For 2 adults (with no kids) the system suggests “1 double bed with sofa bed” or “1 standard” (without specifying double or twin).
This means two adults can choose between the two room types when making a reservation.
The OP chose “1 double bed with sofa bed” and the system allowed the booking. This means the system does not “reserve” these “1 double bed with sofa bed” rooms for families with kids only. Being told otherwise at check-in is clearly BS.
However, does IHG guarantee bedding type at HIX properties in the T&C? OP doesn't appear to have status and, in the absence of further information, I assume that this was a nonaward reservation booked through IHG and not an OLTA or opaque site (which might not permit selecting a particular room type).
Jul 29, 2019, 4:20 pm
#70
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VPS
Programs: IHG Diamond, Delta PM, Hilton Gold, Accor Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 7,268
Hotels in most countries also have to comply with non-discrimination laws in order to stay in business too
Jul 29, 2019, 4:59 pm
#71
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Somewhere in Europe
Posts: 3,362
Just my tuppence worth on the subject.
If this was a widespread practice at the hotel others would have encountered it. looking at TA and IHGs own reviews there is no mention of it at all. Hardly a surprise with IHGs own ones but people like to vent about things like this and if it was the norm someone would have written about it.
If this was a widespread practice at the hotel others would have encountered it. looking at TA and IHGs own reviews there is no mention of it at all. Hardly a surprise with IHGs own ones but people like to vent about things like this and if it was the norm someone would have written about it.
Jul 29, 2019, 9:48 pm
#72
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Amsterdam, Asia, UK
Programs: IHG RA (Spire), HH Diamond, MR Platinum, SQ Gold, KLM Gold, BAEC Gold
Posts: 5,072
IHG room guarantee only guarantees a room , BUT not the bed type or even the room cateory booked. If you know of the internal IHG standards documents, thete is also a "hidden" smoking/non-smoking guarantee where first night (room only part of cost) is then free if smoking preference not honoured
Could be language issue, but in plain English Family refers and will be taken simply as Couple+Children , and not a couple without kids (whether any of MF/MM/FF sexed couples).
OPs grossly overreacted and unecessarily and unfairly label and callout the hotel with a discrimination/homophobic slander, shame on the OPs.
Could be language issue, but in plain English Family refers and will be taken simply as Couple+Children , and not a couple without kids (whether any of MF/MM/FF sexed couples).
OPs grossly overreacted and unecessarily and unfairly label and callout the hotel with a discrimination/homophobic slander, shame on the OPs.
Jul 29, 2019, 9:52 pm
#73
Moderator: InterContinental Hotels and Germany
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,552
A great discussion on this subject.
The OP asked me to close this thread as there is no new discussion on this subject. Again thank you to everybody for contributing to this discussion.
FLYGVA
co-moderator IHGForum
The OP asked me to close this thread as there is no new discussion on this subject. Again thank you to everybody for contributing to this discussion.
FLYGVA
co-moderator IHGForum