There are a lot of places I would like to go, but may be less likely to because I’m not very good at being closeted. Wyoming, Missouri, Georgia, Kentucky, those are all pretty much out for me. All I really need is to be able to kiss my girl in public like a million straight people do.

“Single supplements” are generally levied only in the cases of packaged travel where the pricing is based on the assumption that, say, there will be two people sharing a hotel room or cabin on a cruise. For a tour which includes lodging, that’s understandable: the tour company has to plan how many rooms are needed, and the pricing has to be based on a standard assumption – so most go with the double-occupancy idea. A single person traveling alone on such a tour incurs as much “cost” to the tour company as a couple, and gets as much space as the couple does. But since the tour is priced “per person”, the single supplement is charged to recover that extra lodging cost.

Likewise on a cruise ship, the ship bases its pricing on selling a certain percentage of its lodging space. A single person occupying a cabin that’s designed to accommodate two-revenue paying passengers is, in effect, depriving the ship of the opportunity to sell another fare on the ship. Given the additional revenue-making opportunities per passenger on a ship, that can mean more than the extra cost of the cabin.

Hotels rent rooms, not sleeping spots; it doesn’t generally cost much more in terms of cleaning, etc. to maintain a room occupied by two people instead of one person. So I don’t see it as discrimination to charge by the room, regardless of whether there are one or two people in the room.

Contrast that with hotels (uncommon here, but more common in other countries) with either one double bed or two twin beds, refusing to rent a double-bed room to two men or two women. Or a restaurant kicking a male couple out because they kiss – lightly – when they arrive at the place. That’s discrimination.

At least we’ve progressed somewhat – I can remember some friends taking a carriage tour of the New Orleans French Quarter back in the early 1990′s and the driver was describing the sites as they went by – “That’s the house where so-and-so wrote thus-and-such book… That’s the site of the old St. Louis Hotel, once the grandest hotel in the city” and so forth. At one point, they rounded a corner and the driver tossed out “And over is a gay bar where you can go get AIDS”.

Now, I agree that a restaurant who won’t seat a party of one (especially if they have tables that seat just two people) are discriminating, but even then, it’s primarily economic rather than personal. Tables of one produce less than half the revenue of a table of two, on average (single people rarely order a bottle of wine or an appetizer to split, for instance) but take almost as much serving work. I agree the single person should be served, and with dignity, but at least there’s an understandable reason for it other than personal bias. Incidentally, one reason couples and larger groups are often seated ahead of single persons is that there are typically a lot more tables which seat four people than any other type. Couples are often seated at 4-person tables, as are groups of 3 and 4, but seating a single person at one during a busy period (as noted) means even more lost revenue per spot. So restaurants usually wait till one of the smaller tables comes available.

NOT ANYMORE……………you nailed it, right here:

That’s not the same as the legal and often life-threatening discrimination accorded gays and lesbians (and as far as I know there’s no jurisdication that has laws against solo travelers), it’s still discrimination.

The solo leisure traveler, for one. The “supplement” for single occupancy on cruises can end up costing singles as much as three times what a member of a couple pays. Restaurants in tourist locations sometimes won’t take reservations for one, or will let a solo diner sit and watch walk-in couples and families get seated immediately, until they finally get the message that they’re not welcome. And travel brochures that gush effusively over what a destination offers for couples and families never seem to mention the solo traveler at all. And, of course, hotels charge a single guest the same as a couple.

That’s not the same as the legal and often life-threatening discrimination accorded gays and lesbians (and as far as I know there’s no jurisdication that has laws against solo travelers), it’s still discrimination.

Also, I simply stated that the travel industry needs to welcome all manner of customers who aren’t traveling in “traditional” couples and families. If you disagree with that statement, why?

Like all minorities, the gay community often finds itself stereotyped, insulted and unwelcome — in life, and on vacation. Putting up with such behavior when you’re supposed to be on holiday should be unacceptable, but the reality is that many gays still face daunting decisions about how and where to spend their leisure time.
=============================================

interesting, what other demographic is discriminated like this when traveling???????

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TravelEditor: RT @hharteveldt Interesting: Traveling while #gay http://bit.ly/4XvRBE #traveltuesday…

The real lesson is that we’re no longer in the 1950s. The industry needs to learn that their shareholders are best served by extending the same welcome to the full diversity of travelers as they’re accustomed to giving “traditional” couples and families.