Holiday Inn in Dresden denies Neo-Nazi party leaders hotel room

[Ser Clegane]

Just came across this one (of course I came across a German version, so I selected this particular link only to provide an English translation)
"Way to go, Holiday Inn"

The NPD is a far-right Neo-Nazi party that managed to get seats in the regional parliament of Saxony during the last elections.
These guys are despised by most people (of course they also have too many sympathizers - otherwise they would not have received the votes that they received), so the broader reactions here in Germany were quite positive when this became public - and I cannot deny that this case gave me quite a smile as well.

Nevertheless - what do people here think about the action taken by the hotel manager?
On one hand he denied elected representatives of a legal political party access to his hotel (and made this quite publicly), OTOH he argues that he is manager of an American hotel and has e.g., Jewish or Afro-American guests and does not think that accomodating Neo-Nazis would fit very well with this (apart from his personal view and that of his employees on the NPD).

[Myrddraal]

In the hope that you find lodging more suitable and that we are spared your visit, we remain,

sincerely yours,

[edyzmedieval]

and were surprised that you should have chosen to stay in an American hotel enterprise with a foreign-sounding name.

But this one beats everything....

In the case that this not be possible for contractual reasons, I would like to point out to you that all proceeds taken in by our house through your custom will be donated immediately to the Dresden synagogue. Please view this as a modest compensation for the damages that your fellow ideologists did to the synagogue and to its members years ago.

Apart from that, way to go the Holiday Inn hotel. But on the other part, it will fuel more hate.

[Fragony]

His Hotel his rules, but what is it with Dresden and overkill?

[CBR]

His Hotel his rules, but what is it with Dresden and overkill?

Its a deep burning desire I guess...


CBR

[atheotes]

As you are not welcome in our house and because I cannot ask my employees to greet and serve you, we have asked www.hotel.de to cancel your reservation.

In the case that this not be possible for contractual reasons, I would like to point out to you that all proceeds taken in by our house through your custom will be donated immediately to the Dresden synagogue. Please view this as a modest compensation for the damages that your fellow ideologists did to the synagogue and to its members years ago.

Ouch....

Does he mean that "if we are not able to cancel your reservations we will donate that amount to the dresden synagogue" ?

[Mikeus Caesar]

It's his hotel, he doesn't have to serve them.

Way to go, i say.

[Tribesman]

On one hand he denied elected representatives of a legal political party access to his hotel (and made this quite publicly),

But he hasn't , he covered his ass very well with that letter , he asked he supplier to cancel its booking on the clients behalf , he didn't deny the nazis access . Saying they will not be welcome and saying they cannot come are two different things , the latter would be illegal discrimination .

[Crazed Rabbit]

He should be able to discriminate like this.

CR

[Mikeus Caesar]

But he hasn't , he covered his ass very well with that letter , he asked he supplier to cancel its booking on the clients behalf , he didn't deny the nazis access . Saying they will not be welcome and saying they cannot come are two different things , the latter would be illegal discrimination .

What, so it's all about how you phrase it?

I'm sorry, person of African descent, but you aren't welcome here. "Fair dues"

You can't come, person of African descent *LAW SUITS, JAIL TERM FOR DISCRIMINATION!*

[Ser Clegane]

Does he mean that "if we are not able to cancel your reservations we will donate that amount to the dresden synagogue" ?

Yes - that was his point, and IIRC he "threatened" to do this in a rather public manner during their arrival

he asked he supplier to cancel its booking on the clients behalf

No - he did not cancel on the clients behalf. In the German original of the letter (and in the English translation - at least that's how I read it) it is simply stated that he asked to cancel the reservation.
Of course you are right in a sense that he added

In the case that this not be possible for contractual reasons

making clear that he intents to act within the limitations of the law.

My question for opinions actually was not targeting the legality but rather if people think that it is OK if a hotel rejects customers based on their (legal) plitical affiliation.

[Don Corleone]

Republicans get discriminated against because of their political views all the time. Why should Neo-Nazis get off any easier?

Seriously, sure I think it's okay to boot the Nazis out. 'Free' enterprise means an unfettered entrepreneur, and the innkeeper (or whoever actually owns the hotel) should be free to provide services for whomever he chooses (or doesnt'). The answer to discrimination isn't government mandates to serve a protected class. It's airing the dirty laundry. The media was much more a vehicle for change for Denny's then the local government ever was.

[Fragony]

My question for opinions actually was not targeting the legality but rather if people think that it is OK if a hotel rejects customers based on their (legal) plitical affiliation.

Hotel is no democracy I see nothing wrong with that, find another one. Besides, he has to think oft he other guests as well, doubt they are a nice crowd.

[atheotes]

[QUOTE=Ser Clegane]Yes - that was his point, and IIRC he "threatened" to do this in a rather public manner during their arrival

He surely cannot take their money AND refuse to serve them... unless my brain isnt functioning and i am reading this all wrong. Threatening to donate their money to the synagogue smacks of sensationalism and seeking publicity.

[Ser Clegane]

He surely cannot take their money AND refuse to serve them...

If the contract would not have allowed him to cancel and the "guests" would have insisted on fulfilling it, they would have gotten the rooms.
But the money for the room would than have been donated - this was a way to "scare" them away from insisting on taking the room (and if they had a valid contract the NPD would usually have used legal means to have it fulfilled).

Publicity was of course a major factor here (after all the letter was made public) - and the publicity certainly had several effects.

[atheotes]

My question for opinions actually was not targeting the legality but rather if people think that it is OK if a hotel rejects customers based on their (legal) plitical affiliation.

Thanks for your explanation Ser Clegane...

I am not totally comfortable with customers being deined service based on their political affiliation... it doesnt take too much stretching to do the same based on race/colour/whatever...

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow.. way to take a stand. How controversial.

[Husar]

The only reason the party is legal is because they're hiding their real intentions behind a borderline legal policy. They balance at the edge of what is legal to not be disbanded. Now the manager does the same to keep them out of his Hotel, fair game I'd say.

And PJ, next you're telling me the NPD and their members aren't controversial.

[Proletariat]

I think anyone should be able to deny anyone anything. You always get these people talking about how it's their right to be in a store buying something. No it isn't, it's the store owner's right to tell you to go screw and the buyer's right to buy else where.

Edit: Just saw Don saying this better earlier on :P

[Louis VI the Fat]

Initially, I had a good laugh over it. Quite an inventive letter by the hotel. Why, of all places, should a Dresden hotel host neo-nazis? The city is a painful monument to what nazi madness leads too.

Then I got to think about it a bit more. What if a Dresden hotel doesn't want to host a rabid rightwing pro Israel group, on the grounds that they support terrorism? I can already imagine the headlines.

Even better, what if a German hotel uses it's right to decide who they alow in and simply ban Jews period? Put a sign up, 'Juden nicht gewunscht' ?

[Husar]

Even better, what if a German hotel uses it's right to decide who they alow in and simply ban Jews period? Put a sign up, 'Juden nicht gewunscht' ?

There's a big difference between being a jew and being a neo-nazi hatemongerer in my book. Nazi symbolism is banned here as well unless used to teach history, but noone is afraid that we will ban the peace sign next.

[Ronin]

sure those guys are racist idiots...

but......you´re protesting against their discriminating racist policies by discriminating against their political ideas in your hotel?



sure these guys are douchebags...but why discriminate yourself?.. why not let them stay, take their money, and then offer it to the synagogue with a nice public statement?

[Tribesman]

I think anyone should be able to deny anyone anything.

No , racist scum have rights too , their rights are set out in law , especially concerning access and contracts of service .

why not let them stay, take their money, and then offer it to the synagogue with a nice public statement?

Ronin , that is what is being done in this case , they have the option of staying at the hotel because they booked and it was accepted . What they recieved was a rather polite invitation to take up the option of not demanding the fulfilment of the contract .

They did have another problem recently where they was denied a booking for a party conference , under the law as a legal party they can not be denied the use of a publicly owned building for party business , but it turned out the building wasn't publicly owned so they didn't have that right the same as their protests in Bavaria about holding rallies at a village war memorial are being blocked ,the villagers own the memorial and the surrounding square so can block access to the political gathering .

[Proletariat]

No , racist scum have rights too , their rights are set out in law , especially concerning access and contracts of service .

What's a right of access? Contracts I won't dispute, but I don't think we even have something like a 'right of access' here. Are there laws where you are saying a proprietor has to provide service for everyone who comes along?

[Tribesman]

What's a right of access?

Its a privately owned building which is licenced to be open to the public isn't it , to bar members of the public from gaining that access you have to show legal grounds why they cannot enter , a lunatic political ideology is not a legal ground to deny access .
Thats why they cannot flat out refuse the booking , however once they are in the hotel it wouldn't take much to see to it that you can make some legal grounds to eject them .

[Husar]

Its a privately owned building which is licenced to be open to the public isn't it , to bar members of the public from gaining that access you have to show legal grounds why they cannot enter , a lunatic political ideology is not a legal ground to deny access .

Didn't know that either, so that would count for most shops as well I guess since they're open to the public?

[LittleGrizzly]

By the sounds of it they're a legitimate political party (however racist they are) so they shouldn't be refused services, the hotel owner played it brilliantly!

[IrishArmenian]

No , racist scum have rights too , their rights are set out in law , especially concerning access and contracts of service .

But businesses reserve the right to deny service to anyone, yes?
I am acting rather hypocritically here, congratulating a man for political discrimination, but I want to pat that man on the back and buy him a round. I love the synagogue remark!

[Crazed Rabbit]

No , racist scum have rights too , their rights are set out in law , especially concerning access and contracts of service .

No what, tribesy? Prole was talking about what should be, not the law as it stands. Strawman.

Or are your opinions of what is right dictated by what is written in law?

CR

[Redleg]

Its a privately owned building which is licenced to be open to the public isn't it , to bar members of the public from gaining that access you have to show legal grounds why they cannot enter , a lunatic political ideology is not a legal ground to deny access .

In the context that this sentence is written - I am not sure your correct, since privately owned business's in the United States have the ability to refuse service to anyone they wish. Now that business must be careful about refusing service, but according to the law here a private business can indeed refuse to serve an individual.

Thats why they cannot flat out refuse the booking , however once they are in the hotel it wouldn't take much to see to it that you can make some legal grounds to eject them .

Now this part I tend to agree with - easy for a hotel to evict a guest based upon some criteria.