Shadow Home Secretary's views on B&B owners rights
Posted by: warwick on 05 April 2010
Story in yesterday's Observer about Tory Home Affairs spokesman Chris Grayling that guest house owners should ''have the right'' to turn away gay couples.
Surely this illustrates a cheap attempt to appeal to biggoted attitudes. Or, more worryingly, the real face of the friends and supporters of PR man David Cameron.
Surely this illustrates a cheap attempt to appeal to biggoted attitudes. Or, more worryingly, the real face of the friends and supporters of PR man David Cameron.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by u5227470736789439
Perhaps it is part of a plan to loose the election? Or perhaps he was being too honest for his own political good? PC is everywhere now.
ATB from George
ATB from George
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Mick P
George
I know a great deal of Tory party workers and they seriously want to lose this election.
Whoever wins this election is going to have to take measures that will guarantee that they will be hated. You can forget all the rhetoric, the Treasury will be calling the shots in twelve months time.
Regards
Mick
I know a great deal of Tory party workers and they seriously want to lose this election.
Whoever wins this election is going to have to take measures that will guarantee that they will be hated. You can forget all the rhetoric, the Treasury will be calling the shots in twelve months time.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Sniper
oh dear, oh dear. Such a short post but so many mistakes.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by BigH47
quote:Originally posted by Sniper:
oh dear, oh dear. Such a short post but so many mistakes.
You knew that before you read it though!
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Sniper
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:quote:Originally posted by Sniper:
oh dear, oh dear. Such a short post but so many mistakes.
You knew that before you read it though!
Yes, I did. No special powers needed for that methinks.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Given that their business is privately-run and that they are Godbotherers, I find it hard to see why they cannot chose who they want to host.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Mick P
Chaps
This is an awkward one. This is their own house and they are committed Christians who dissapprove of homosexuality. You can argue that they have the right to turn away anyone with whom they have an issue for whatever reason.
On the other hand, if you operate a business, even from home, you have to accept that you are like any other business and have to comply with all laws of the land and they knew this when they took on the business.
On balance, I feel that they should have taken this gay couple in and to refuse to do so should be an offence.
Regards
Mick
This is an awkward one. This is their own house and they are committed Christians who dissapprove of homosexuality. You can argue that they have the right to turn away anyone with whom they have an issue for whatever reason.
On the other hand, if you operate a business, even from home, you have to accept that you are like any other business and have to comply with all laws of the land and they knew this when they took on the business.
On balance, I feel that they should have taken this gay couple in and to refuse to do so should be an offence.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by mongo
A second for Mr. Parry.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by BigH47
Worryingly I seen to be agreeing with Mick, (and others).
Whether the people in the story are morally right or wrong, they are made to be wrong because of the legislation, if they refuse access to the gay couple.
Whether that legislation is correct is another subject altogether.
Whether the people in the story are morally right or wrong, they are made to be wrong because of the legislation, if they refuse access to the gay couple.
Whether that legislation is correct is another subject altogether.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
In which case you are imposing the law of the land in a manner that overrides somebodies religious beliefs, however unusual we may find them.
As long as the course of action harms nobody this suggested manner of State interventionism cannot be right. What is the next step? Forced removal of the Hijab from law-abiding Muslim citizens?
The B&B owners are, AIUI, able to deny rooms to anyone. I saw a brief interview with the couple concerned, and they did seem to be rather demonstrative. I can understand how their behaviour could upset the conservative-minded, to be honest.
As long as the course of action harms nobody this suggested manner of State interventionism cannot be right. What is the next step? Forced removal of the Hijab from law-abiding Muslim citizens?
The B&B owners are, AIUI, able to deny rooms to anyone. I saw a brief interview with the couple concerned, and they did seem to be rather demonstrative. I can understand how their behaviour could upset the conservative-minded, to be honest.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
In which case you are imposing the law of the land in a manner that overrides somebodies religious beliefs, however unusual we may find them.
As long as the course of action harms nobody this suggested manner of State interventionism cannot be right. What is the next step? Forced removal of the Hijab from law-abiding Muslim citizens? Force-feeding bacon to the Jewish community?
The B&B owners are, AIUI, able to deny rooms to anyone. I saw a brief interview with the couple concerned, and they did seem to be rather demonstrative. I can understand how their behaviour could upset the conservative-minded, to be honest.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Mike-B
I don't see this as either awkward or difficult
This is a boarding house, not an hotel, guests are living in the owners house.
The owners have the right to offer accommodation to whoever they choose to have in & share in the facilities of their home. They also have the right to conditionally restrict tenants to people or couples or groups of their choosing.
If they have an issue with gays, go book somewhere else, gays do not have rights in this respect.
Likewise if you have an issue with the owners religion or attitude, go book somewhere else.
This is a boarding house, not an hotel, guests are living in the owners house.
The owners have the right to offer accommodation to whoever they choose to have in & share in the facilities of their home. They also have the right to conditionally restrict tenants to people or couples or groups of their choosing.
If they have an issue with gays, go book somewhere else, gays do not have rights in this respect.
Likewise if you have an issue with the owners religion or attitude, go book somewhere else.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by KenM
Mike,
You are right. For me, a person's sexual or religious leanings are a matter for them but not if they want to bring them into my home. If the law says otherwise, then I have to disagree with it or choose to break it.
Ken
You are right. For me, a person's sexual or religious leanings are a matter for them but not if they want to bring them into my home. If the law says otherwise, then I have to disagree with it or choose to break it.
Ken
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by mrflange
well put mike.quote:Originally posted by Mike-B:
I don't see this as either awkward or difficult
This is a boarding house, not an hotel, guests are living in the owners house.
The owners have the right to offer accommodation to whoever they choose to have in & share in the facilities of their home. They also have the right to conditionally restrict tenants to people or couples or groups of their choosing.
If they have an issue with gays, go book somewhere else, gays do not have rights in this respect.
Likewise if you have an issue with the owners religion or attitude, go book somewhere else.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by BigH47
I'm assuming there no animal law and so you can refuse to house a dog,cat, gorilla or whatever?
Do B&Bs come under the H&S act? If so then they are probably regulated and so the discrimination laws apply, re gay couples not dogs etc.
Do B&Bs come under the H&S act? If so then they are probably regulated and so the discrimination laws apply, re gay couples not dogs etc.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
It is illegal in this country for a business to refuse to provide people with its services on the grounds of sexuality. As Mick said, these people knew this, yet they conducted a business which is carried out in their home. As they're clearly unwilling to allow gay people into their home their position is untenable. They're not prepared to operate within the law and they should shut down. No one is forcing them to allow gay people into their home. They have a choice.
Mike-B,
Mike-B,
This doesn't matter. They chose to make their home their place of business. You might as well say;quote:This is a boarding house, not an hotel, guests are living in the owners house.
Which is clearly discriminatory and unacceptable.quote:The owners have the right to sell shoes to whoever they choose to have in & share in the facilities of their shop. They also have the right to conditionally restrict customers to people or couples or groups of their choosing.
If they have an issue with gays, go shop somewhere else, gays do not have rights in this respect.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by 151
seconded.quote:Originally posted by mrflange:well put mike.quote:Originally posted by Mike-B:
I don't see this as either awkward or difficult
This is a boarding house, not an hotel, guests are living in the owners house.
The owners have the right to offer accommodation to whoever they choose to have in & share in the facilities of their home. They also have the right to conditionally restrict tenants to people or couples or groups of their choosing.
If they have an issue with gays, go book somewhere else, gays do not have rights in this respect.
Likewise if you have an issue with the owners religion or attitude, go book somewhere else.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by David Scott?:
It is illegal in this country for a business to refuse to provide people with its services on the grounds of sexuality.
Does this apply to B&Bs?
Can somebody actually find this out, rather than assuming?
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
Yes it does.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Sorry, David, that is not really much use as a reply.
A tad more precision, if you would.
A tad more precision, if you would.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by 151
yes,come on david chapter and verse if you please.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
Haven't got much more than that I'm afraid. I asked someone who works in tourism and he said they did. It's his job to know these things, but I didn't ask him what the act was.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by 151
well thats simply not good enough 100 lines for you ,i must do better next time.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
From The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
I found plenty of references which make it clear that B&B's ARE covered - presumably as 'similar establishments'.quote:(1) It is unlawful for a person (“A”) concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public of goods, facilities or services to discriminate against a person (“B”) who seeks to obtain or to use those goods, facilities or services—
(a)by refusing to provide B with goods, facilities or services,
...
(2) Paragraph (1) applies, in particular, to—
...
(b)accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment,
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Derry
David's reference is correct. Any action against the discriminators would be via civil proceedings in tort.