Couple's wedding clashes with Muslim fun day

[ManUtd 0]

The banquet hall is not private. The rooms are, jackass.

 

 

 

 

So you are saying I can take my cousins up to the Banquet Hall and let them run around and ride their bikes in the parking lot because it is a public facility. Last time I checked most banquet halls are run by a private company/group, not City Hall. Jackass

[Electric Mayhem 35]

Personally, I woudn't want to be anywhere near an exaggerated blast radius of anything even resembling a "Muslim Fun Day". Especially if I was going to be one of the only infidels attending.

[Toro 1]

thanks for playing. you are now 0-2.

 

Typical.

 

I present an argument without a link.

You present an argument without a link.

 

I'm wrong?

 

[ManUtd 0]

Personally, I woudn't want to be anywhere near an exaggerated blast radius of anything even resembling a "Muslim Fun Day". Especially if I was going to be one of the only infidels attending.

 

 

Dude, it's "Fun Day" not "Prove your love to Allah Day" You'll be safe.

[kilroy69 1,016]

Is putting a bomb in the middle of this "Muslim fun day" out of the question?

[cday 0]

Typical.

 

I present an argument without a link.

You present an argument without a link.

 

I'm wrong?

 

 

yes. if you can't understand that a private establishment can have 2 seperate contracts with 2 seperate groups, then obviously this is a lost cause. it does not all of a sudden "become the exact same as if .. it was open to the public".

 

maybe in toro-land that flies, but i believe we are discussing the real world here.

[wiffleball 4,659]

To show my tolerance, I just sent The Muslim Fun Day 12 Honey Baked Hams.

[Toro 1]

So you are saying I can take my cousins up to the Banquet Hall and let them run around and ride their bikes in the parking lot because it is a public facility. Last time I checked most banquet halls are run by a private company/group, not City Hall. Jackass

 

No, that's not the same context. The building is allowed to let anyone they want on the property (thus restricting it to only those people they invite onto the property). The rooms (rented by an individual or group) can restrict entry to that room based on their requirements.

 

For example, let's say there is a wedding in one room and a tattoo convention in the other. The building owners can restrict access to the property to the guests of those 2 parties. The wedding can restrict the people who are allowed into the wedding room. The tattoo guys can restrict entry to their room.

 

Comprende?

[RLLD 3,503]

Muslims are about as "tolerant" as the Nazi's, in fact the similarities between the two are interesting.

[Toro 1]

yes. if you can't understand that a private establishment can have 2 seperate contracts with 2 seperate groups, then obviously this is a lost cause. it does not all of a sudden "become the exact same as if .. it was open to the public".

 

maybe in toro-land that flies, but i believe we are discussing the real world here.

 

and once you understand that if the groups are using shared facilities, then those facilities are no longer considered private.

[Blitzen 0]

"An Alton Towers spokesman claimed it was a condition of the Islamic Leisure booking that wedding and hotel guests would be exempt from the Muslim dress code". We need to know if that's in writing or not. We don't know.

 

If it is in writing, then the hotel, and possibly the other couple, can sue the Muslims. I'm guessing they would win that hands down.

[Toro 1]

Here your link:

 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in public accommodations, such as restaurants, theaters, and hotels. Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in public facilities owned or operated by a state or local government.

 

Here's title II...(Pay attention to the bold).

 

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF

 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

 

SEC. 201. a. All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

B. Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

 

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

 

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

 

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

 

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

 

(4) any establishment A.(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

 

c. The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection b; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection b., it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection b, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection b, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

 

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

 

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection .

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/m...aw/civilr19.htm

 

[ManUtd 0]

No, that's not the same context. The building is allowed to let anyone they want on the property (thus restricting it to only those people they invite onto the property). The rooms (rented by an individual or group) can restrict entry to that room based on their requirements.

 

For example, let's say there is a wedding in one room and a tattoo convention in the other. The building owners can restrict access to the property to the guests of those 2 parties. The wedding can restrict the people who are allowed into the wedding room. The tattoo guys can restrict entry to their room.

 

Comprende?

 

Alton Towers Facilities (hotel and attached amusement park as a whole) = Banquet Hall

Alton Towers Amusement Park = Banquet Hall Room

Which is why, you redneck moron, the religious dress conditions requested and agreed upon with Alton towers were restricted to the park and not to the Hotel AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE.

Their wedding isn't ruined, only their "Celebratory Rides" in the park which, I admittedly ASSUME, were included in their wedding package (i.e.: "their duck dance in the other Banquet Room")

 

 

Does it make sense now?

 

 

 

 

Here your link:

 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in public accommodations, such as restaurants, theaters, and hotels. Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in public facilities owned or operated by a state or local government.

 

Here's title II...(Pay attention to the bold).

 

 

You need the UK version as this is taking place in England and not the US.

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Which is why, you redneck moron, the religious dress conditions requested and agreed upon with Alton towers were restricted to the park and not to the Hotel AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE.

Their wedding isn't ruined, only their "Celebratory Rides" in the park which, I admittedly ASSUME, were included in their wedding package (i.e.: "their duck dance in the other Banquet Room")

Does it make sense now?

 

You do realize that the wedding people signed up first, and that the clothing restrictions were put in place AFTER they had signed up. If you see no inequity in this then I'll assume you are either Muslim or are part of the brainwashed the feels that they must get their way 24/7.

[parrot 789]

I have less of a problem with Muslims renting out a private facility and doing their Allah-thing. What we're seeing all over America right now is Muslim women requiring private gyms to provide them with seperate work-out hours away from men, seperate swimming areas, etc...

 

-Now, THAT's BS.

How do Muslim women "require" private gyms to do this?

[Toro 1]

Alton Towers Facilities (hotel and attached amusement park as a whole) = Banquet Hall

Alton Towers Amusement Park = Banquet Hall Room

Which is why, you redneck moron, the religious dress conditions requested and agreed upon with Alton towers were restricted to the park and not to the Hotel AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE.

Their wedding isn't ruined, only their "Celebratory Rides" in the park which, I admittedly ASSUME, were included in their wedding package (i.e.: "their duck dance in the other Banquet Room")

Does it make sense now?

You need the UK version as this is taking place in England and not the US.

 

 

Wrong.

 

Alton Towers Facilities (hotel and attached amusement park as a whole) = Banquet Hall

Alton Towers Amusement Park = Banquet Hall Room

 

But the facilities allowed usage of the park to multiple parties. Therefore, not private. Are you saying that the couple and their wedding party were told before they booked the party that the rides were going to be off limits???

 

and I will get right on that research of Britain's laws regarding religious discrimination. Hold your breath while I do it.

 

 

Redneck?

[RLLD 3,503]

:popcorn:

[cday 0]

You do realize that the wedding people signed up first, and that the clothing restrictions were put in place AFTER they had signed up. If you see no inequity in this then I'll assume you are either Muslim or are part of the brainwashed the feels that they must get their way 24/7.

 

i am *sure* that the contract has a stipulation saying they could cancel it for any reason. that's standard boilerplate. another larger group came along, likely with a lot more money, and they are getting preference.

 

this is capitalism at work. you all should be happy.

[ManUtd 0]

You do realize that the wedding people signed up first, and that the clothing restrictions were put in place AFTER they had signed up. If you see no inequity in this then I'll assume you are either Muslim or are part of the brainwashed the feels that they must get their way 24/7.

 

Oh yes, I realize this, and the fact that Alton Towers screwed up by double booking. I also realize that Alton Towers is conforming to the Muslim group in the interest of money. Again, accommodate 60 guests for a one time event or 20,000 for what can possibly become a yearly event. I got to side with Alton Towers and their interest in profit on this one.

 

The arguement with Toro was whether Alton Towers was violating laws by imposing one group's restrictions on another within a designated area of the Alton Towers grounds as a whole. The wedding party only rented a hotel event room and 20 guest rooms. Their celebratory rides were part of the package. The Muslim group rented out the Amusement Park as a whole and morethan likely several guest rooms. Now the Muslim group is willing to allow the wedding party into the park (that it has rented for a private event) as long as they conform to their initial request that religious dress in observed ONLY within the Amusement park. Hotel and wedding guests are exempt as stated in the end of the article. Once the wedding party goes into the park they are no longer wedding/hotel guests but Park guests, therefore falling within the confines of the Muslim request within the rental agreement with Alton Towers.

[cday 0]

Oh yes, I realize this, and the fact that Alton Towers screwed up by double booking. I also realize that Alton Towers is conforming to the Muslim group in the interest of money. Again, accommodate 60 guests for a one time event or 20,000 for what can possibly become a yearly event. I got to side with Alton Towers and their interest in profit on this one.

 

The arguement with Toro was whether Alton Towers was violating laws by imposing one group's restrictions on another within a designated area of the Alton Towers grounds as a whole. The wedding party only rented a hotel event room and 20 guest rooms. Their celebratory rides were part of the package. The Muslim group rented out the Amusement Park as a whole and morethan likely several guest rooms. Now the Muslim group is willing to allow the wedding party into the park (that it has rented for a private event) as long as they conform to their initial request that religious dress in observed ONLY within the Amusement park. Hotel and wedding guests are exempt as stated in the end of the article. Once the wedding party goes into the park they are no longer wedding/hotel guests but Park guests, therefore falling within the confines of the Muslim request within the rental agreement with Alton Towers.

 

[Toro 1]

i am *sure* that the contract has a stipulation saying they could cancel it for any reason. that's standard boilerplate. another larger group came along, likely with a lot more money, and they are getting preference.

 

this is capitalism at work. you all should be happy.

 

Oh, so you are "making authoritative statements" without any proof???

 

 

You crack me up.

 

 

 

 

The arguement with Toro was whether Alton Towers was violating laws by imposing one group's restrictions on another within a designated area of the Alton Towers grounds as a whole. The wedding party only rented a hotel event room and 20 guest rooms. Their celebratory rides were part of the package. The Muslim group rented out the Amusement Park as a whole and morethan likely several guest rooms. Now the Muslim group is willing to allow the wedding party into the park (that it has rented for a private event) as long as they conform to their initial request that religious dress in observed ONLY within the Amusement park. Hotel and wedding guests are exempt as stated in the end of the article. Once the wedding party goes into the park they are no longer wedding/hotel guests but Park guests, therefore falling within the confines of the Muslim request within the rental agreement with Alton Towers.

 

If the rides were part of the package, then entrance to the park was part of the package and therefore the contract covers all things within the package.

 

What you are saying is that they got a contract to use all three parts of the facility (You said it yourself, see bold). They did not say that they would have to conform to anything until after the contract was signed.

[cday 0]

Oh, so you are "making authoritative statements" without any proof???

 

 

You crack me up.

If the rides were part of the package, then entrance to the park was part of the package and therefore the contract covers all things within the package.

 

What you are saying is that they got a contract to use all three parts of the facility (You said it yourself, see bold). They did not say that they would have to conform to anything until after the contract was signed.

 

if someone can prove that the contract doesn't have a way for the park to back out of it, i will leave this board for 6 months. that is standard in virtually any industry.

[The Total Package 0]

The celebratory rides are part of the wedding package?

 

Calculate the value of those and subtract it from the couple's bill. Perhaps subtract a bit more for the "inconvenience." Then don't allow them in the park.

[Toro 1]

if someone can prove that the contract doesn't have a way for the park to back out of it, i will leave this board for 6 months. that is standard in virtually any industry.

 

That's funny. Because every venue we looked at before we got married did not have that. Why would you sign a contract with a place to have your wedding reception and allow them to cancel it at any time for any reason?

 

[cday 0]

That's funny. Because every venue we looked at before we got married did not have that. Why would you sign a contract with a place to have your wedding reception and allow them to cancel it at any time for any reason?

 

 

because most people don't read the fine print, and businesses like to provide a way for them cover their asses, exactly for cases like this. they want to be able to terminate the contract, for any reason, at any time.

[Toro 1]

if someone can prove that the contract doesn't have a way for the park to back out of it, i will leave this board for 6 months. that is standard in virtually any industry.

 

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Toro" <torotoro@yahoo.com>

To: events@alton-towers.com

 

Good day.

 

If I booked an event with you, such as a meeting or a wedding, is there anything in the contract that allows you to cancel our event for any reason?

 

Thanks.

Toro

 

Waiting for response....

 

because most people don't read the fine print, and businesses like to provide a way for them cover their asses, exactly for cases like this. they want to be able to terminate the contract, for any reason, at any time.

 

It doesn't matter if they bury it in the fine print if you ask them and they say no.

[cday 0]

uh, are you trying to imply a verbal contract is more enforceable or carries more weight than a written one?

 

toro, they have a PDF of their spa services on there.

 

in the fine print:

 

Signature Date

I agree to the terms & conditions (see back page)

Terms & conditions: Prices are subject to change without notice. A credit card is needed to secure your booking. This is a request form only and is not a guarantee of booking. Upon receipt of this form a member of staff from the Alton Towers Spa will contact you to confirm/discuss your booking. The Alton Towers Spa is open to over 16's only, with the exception of those on our Spa Bliss package. A £5 deposit is required for all treatments on time of booking Cancellation policy - Guests who wish to cancel a Spa appointment are kindly asked to give at least 7 days notice prior to packages, or 50% of the full value will be charged. For treatments/Aqua Relaxation Rooms appointments, guests are kindly asked to give 24 hours notice, or the full value of the treatment/Aqua Relaxation Room session will be charged. Alton Towers reserve the right, in its absolute discretion, to refuse entry and to close and/or alter any part of the facilities. Subject to availability.

The Alton Towers Spa, Alton, Staffordshire, ST10 4DB.

T: 0870 443 2333 E: spa@alton-towers.com W: www.altontowers.com/spa

 

i hope i've made my point regarding boilerplate like this.

[ManUtd 0]

That's funny. Because every venue we looked at before we got married did not have that. Why would you sign a contract with a place to have your wedding reception and allow them to cancel it at any time for any reason?

 

 

 

Common practice in MO and IL that I do know of with certainty. I'm willing to beet you glanced over your contract and did not read it thoroughly. That or understand what you were reading except for the price and what was included, which MIL paid for anyway ( I kid, I kid ).

 

My whole premise for posting in this was to point out that this situation should not be blamed on the Muslim group but rather the hotel. Then I thought you were not seeing the whole picture about private parties renting the place with stipulations that the facility is WILLING to enforce within certain areas, so I thought I would offer an explaination/examples. Now I see that you are so hell bent on proving your point no matter if it is wrong (and you probably do know it is wrong) that you continue to argue this.

 

By the way in one of my previous posts I did state in caps that I assumed the celebratory rides were included in their wedding package. I do not know this for sure and stated so up front.

 

I do know thay cday and I are correct.

 

uh, are you trying to imply a verbal contract is more enforceable or carries more weight than a written one?

 

toro, they have a PDF of their spa services on there.

 

in the fine print:

 

Signature Date

I agree to the terms & conditions (see back page)

Terms & conditions: Prices are subject to change without notice. A credit card is needed to secure your booking. This is a request form only and is not a guarantee of booking. Upon receipt of this form a member of staff from the Alton Towers Spa will contact you to confirm/discuss your booking. The Alton Towers Spa is open to over 16's only, with the exception of those on our Spa Bliss package. A £5 deposit is required for all treatments on time of booking Cancellation policy - Guests who wish to cancel a Spa appointment are kindly asked to give at least 7 days notice prior to packages, or 50% of the full value will be charged. For treatments/Aqua Relaxation Rooms appointments, guests are kindly asked to give 24 hours notice, or the full value of the treatment/Aqua Relaxation Room session will be charged. Alton Towers reserve the right, in its absolute discretion, to refuse entry and to close and/or alter any part of the facilities. Subject to availability.

The Alton Towers Spa, Alton, Staffordshire, ST10 4DB.

T: 0870 443 2333 E: spa@alton-towers.com W: www.altontowers.com/spa

 

i hope i've made my point regarding boilerplate like this.

 

Owned

[cday 0]

It doesn't matter if they bury it in the fine print if you ask them and they say no.

 

i'm still laughing about that one. that's pretty good.

[RLLD 3,503]

i'm still laughing about that one. that's pretty good.

 

I think it can vary depending on where you are. I was able to hold a company to their verbal agreement even though their written portion did not secure what they promised.

[Toro 1]

uh, are you trying to imply a verbal contract is more enforceable or carries more weight than a written one?

 

They carry the same weight.

 

When Will a Promise or Statement Be Considered a Binding Contract?

 

Are there any instances in which a contract could exist even though the parties did not complete the deal?

 

If one party makes a statement or a promise that causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that he or she is financially injured by that reliance, then a court will enforce the statement or promise as if it was a completed contract. The court does not need to find an agreement or consideration in order to enforce the promise like a contract.

 

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-...ew-binding.html

 

So if they expressly promise me that they will not cancel, then it's a part of the contract.

 

Now, if there is a conflicting contract (such as the fine print), it will be at a judge's discretion whether or not fraud was involved. But if I can provide multiple witnesses to prove that before entering the contract that I was assured I will not be cancelled, I am *sure* that I would win.

 

Owned

 

1) My point has nothing to do with the contract or enforceablility. My argument was that the couple was religiously discriminated against.

 

2) That says nothing about a contract.

 

 

i'm still laughing about that one. that's pretty good.

 

Laugh it up. It just goes to show that you don't really truly understand or grasp the basic concepts of law.

 

 

 

Alton Towers reserve the right, in its absolute discretion, to refuse entry and to close and/or alter any part of the facilities.

 

This means EVERYONE. Not just one religion. And just because they put it on a piece of paper, doesn't mean it doesn't violate the law.

 

I think it can vary depending on where you are. I was able to hold a company to their verbal agreement even though their written portion did not secure what they promised.

 

Thank you.

[hoytdwow 202]

They carry the same weight.

Only if you can prove the oral contract's existence, which is obviously hard to do.

Also, use the term 'oral contract.' A verbal contract is any contract whatsoever expressed in words (written or oral).

HTH, YW, etc.

[Toro 1]

Only if you can prove the oral contract's existence, which is obviously hard to do.

Also, use the term 'oral contract.' A verbal contract is any contract whatsoever expressed in words (written or oral).

HTH, YW, etc.

 

Sorry, I meant oral. Thank you for the correction.

[cday 0]

Only if you can prove the oral contract's existence, which is obviously hard to do.

Also, use the term 'oral contract.' A verbal contract is any contract whatsoever expressed in words (written or oral).

HTH, YW, etc.

 

exactly. oral contracts are very difficult to prove, *especially* if you signed a written contract to the opposite terms. one could argue that just voids the original oral contract if you signed a written one with different terms afterwards. that's your own negligence at fault.

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

The real question is, why do you people give such a fock about a stupid wedding conflcit in the uk?

 

God I miss the pron

[Toro 1]

exactly. oral contracts are very difficult to prove, *especially* if you signed a written contract to the opposite terms. one could argue that just voids the original oral contract if you signed a written one with different terms afterwards. that's your own negligence at fault.

 

A contract is an enforceable agreement that can be written, oral, or implied by the actions or intentions of the parties. The words agreement and contract legally mean the same thing. Presuming that the parties entering into the contract were of sound mind, that there was mutual acceptance of agreed-upon terms, and that consideration (something of value given or promised by one party in exchange for an act or promise of another) was given, a valid contract may be found to exist.

 

You didn't say prove. You said that one had more weight then the other.

 

I said they were equal.

 

I win.

[hoytdwow 202]

Sorry, I meant oral.

[cday 0]

You didn't say prove. You said that one had more weight then the other.

 

I said they were equal.

 

I win.

 

to break out a FFT cliche, "I didn't say that".

 

I simply laughed at your assertion. They are not equal in all ways, obviously. One is far more beneficial to have. If you can honestly say you feel they are equal, you must feel it's ok to go through life without signing written contracts, because oral ones are good enough.

 

However, I doubt you really feel that way. Or you are a far more trusting person than I.

[ManUtd 0]

1) My point has nothing to do with the contract or enforceablility. My argument was that the couple was religiously discriminated against.

 

 

But they weren't religiously discriminated against. They were asked to abide to a dress code. Much like a resteraunt or bar might do during a special event (ie: Valentine's day, New Year's Eve, Masquerade Ball). Yes a certain group asked for this dress code and the facility fully accepted with the condition that it is only enforced within the park. At no time were they denied access to the park. They were simply asked to put on a jacket, pants, mask, etc if they wanted to enjoy the rides within the park.

[Toro 1]

to break out a FFT cliche, "I didn't say that".

 

I simply laughed at your assertion. They are not equal in all ways, obviously. One is far more beneficial to have. If you can honestly say you feel they are equal, you must feel it's ok to go through life without signing written contracts, because oral ones are good enough.

 

However, I doubt you really feel that way. Or you are a far more trusting person than I.

 

If I went through life having two independent people following me around and could independently verif.....

 

 

I'd rather have them written too.

 

Back to the subject.

 

They signed a contract. They were told they could only use part of the facility if they followed a religious custom. That is religious discrimination.

 

Go.!!!