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: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Thanks David, good of you to evidence.
I would disagree with the Law here; I'd take into account the feelings of the proprietors, however antediluvian they might seem.
151 - it does help to provide fact, rather than anecdote.
I would disagree with the Law here; I'd take into account the feelings of the proprietors, however antediluvian they might seem.
151 - it does help to provide fact, rather than anecdote.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by deadlifter
Surely if your forcing people to accept somebody else`s religion/politics or sexuality against their own beliefs [religion/politics/sexuality] in their own home whether its a private business or not then you must be discriminating against them as well ???
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
... is the problem.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by deadlifter:
Surely if your forcing people to accept somebody else`s religion/politics or sexuality against their own beliefs [religion/politics/sexuality] in their own home whether its a private business or not then you must be discriminating against them as well ???
I think not because as they have conciously decided to do business then they must aknowledge and obey the law regardless of their moral/religious stance. Should they choose to disregard the law then they have not a leg to stand on.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
You're not denying them anything except the right to discriminate. They chose to make their home a place of business. I'm not denying that it might be difficult for them to change jobs, but if they're not prepared to provide a public service, then that's what they'll have to do. I do realise that I'm not very sympathetic, because I find their homophobia so repellent. Those who're less uncomfortable with that particular prejudice might feel differently, but the law is surely fair and reasonable whether you feel sorry for them or not.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by deadlifter
But your still forcing someone to accept a minority`s beliefs against their own so how can that be fair
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
David, its not so much that I'm denying them the right to discriminate, rather that I can accept that they feel that their Faith requires them to take this course of action.
Its not accurate to say its homophobia, either. That implies an hatred of gays.
Its not accurate to say its homophobia, either. That implies an hatred of gays.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by deadlifter:
But your still forcing someone to accept a minority`s beliefs against their own so how can that be fair
It seems more reasonable to suggest that the law is there to provide against discrimination, as opposed to forcing someone to accept a minorities beliefs.
I venture to suggest that had the b&b owners refused entry to a black couple or a Muslim couple or even a Jehova's Witness couple this thread would have had shorter legs.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
Being gay is not a belief - it's a fundamental part of someone's identity. The belief is that being gay is acceptable and that it's wrong to discriminate against people on the grounds that that's who they are. As this principle is now enshrined in British law, I'm not sure that it really counts as a minority point of view.quote:But your still forcing someone to accept a minority`s beliefs against their own so how can that be fair
These people chose to make their home a place of business. That's a big decision. It makes a big difference and entails certain sacrifices. Maybe the change in the law means it's no longer a decision they're comfortable with and they should think again.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
Mike,
I do think it's homophobia and I don't think claiming that God put you up to it is an excuse.
I do think it's homophobia and I don't think claiming that God put you up to it is an excuse.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by deadlifter:
But your still forcing someone to accept a minority`s beliefs against their own so how can that be fair
Deadlifter
Who's in the minority? Those who take an adult view of other people's sexuality (ie that it's nothing to do with them)? Or a pair of bigoted godbotherers, who, as the pious so often seem to do, take an unhealthy interest in what consenting adults do in bed?
I would suggest that, in 2010 (I accept this may not have been the case 30 or 40 years ago), it is the latter who are in the minority.
The B&B owners would have been perfectly within their rights to refuse entry to their home or private dwelling to anyone they want. However, as Mick and others have pointed out, because they have made their home into a business, they are no longer entitled to do so under law.
They or their supporters could lobby to get the law changed but I fear they wouldn't get much support.
I think, however, their energy would be better used into looking deeply into their souls and ask themselves why they seem to have it in for homosexuals.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
We'll have to agree to differ on that - there seems tio be no hatred towards the couple, according to the press comment I've read. The Christian view is "love the Sinner, hate the Sin" which encapsulates things neatly.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Kevin-W
An added point - this can't be particularly good for business.
I mean, who'd want to stay in a B&B run by a prejudiced couple? That said, I suppose they might corner the market in catering for the anti-gay lobby...
I mean, who'd want to stay in a B&B run by a prejudiced couple? That said, I suppose they might corner the market in catering for the anti-gay lobby...
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
We'll have to agree to differ on that - there seems tio be no hatred towards the couple, according to the press comment I've read. The Christian view is "love the Sinner, hate the Sin" which encapsulates things neatly.
Mike, what precisely is the, er, "sin" here?
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
Mike/Kev,
I wasn't going to bother, but yes, that would be my question too.
I wasn't going to bother, but yes, that would be my question too.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
The act of sodomy,I gather.
I find one eyebrow being raised at the thought that some posters here want others tio think they did not know this.
I find one eyebrow being raised at the thought that some posters here want others tio think they did not know this.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
The act of sodomy,I gather.
I find one eyebrow being raised at the thought that some posters here want others tio think they did not know this.
Silly me! I was under the impression that what consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom was not a matter of concern for the church, the government, the devout, the undevout or anyone else.
I didn't even know it was wrong! Doh! I can be so daft sometimes!
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Kevin, stop trying to be clever.
I am raising the issue of the Godbotherers' right, as most people here have realised (and others have also done. )
Is that too tricky for you?
Just because the Law says you *can* do something, does not mean that you *have* to do that thing. I can eat bacon, Jews cannot, for example. Are you worried about the Talmud vs. UK law?
I am raising the issue of the Godbotherers' right, as most people here have realised (and others have also done. )
Is that too tricky for you?
Just because the Law says you *can* do something, does not mean that you *have* to do that thing. I can eat bacon, Jews cannot, for example. Are you worried about the Talmud vs. UK law?
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by mongo
quote:Just because the Law says you *can* do something, does not mean that you *have* to do that thing.
Oh dear Mike. True colours I believe?
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Kevin-W
Mike
As a libertarian, I respect the rights of the B&B owners, or anyone else, to hold whatever filthy set of prejudices they want to.
Like many other people I'd rather they kept their bigotry to themselves but we live in a free country so they can say what they want. They have a prefect right to turn away whomsoever they choose; however the law says they are not entitled to do this.
I can see how their "rights" might have been violated, but what about the right of two perfectly law-abiding citizens to be treated with a modicum of respect and dignity?
Personally, if I'd have been one of the gay couple, I wouldn't have reported them to the police (or even the papers). What I would have done, however is to warn the gay community not to bother with this particular guest house.
I just wonder if these two are such Christians why they can't be a bit more "forgiving" and try to do a bit of good in the world, instead of making things a teeny bit worse.
What kind of person worries about "sodomy" between consenting adults in this day and age? Given all the problems that exist all over the world, haven't they got something more important to worry about?
My final point - one of the tiresome things about the pious is not only that they believe they have a monopoly on morality but that they think they deserve special treatment, that their rights override everyone else's.
As a libertarian, I respect the rights of the B&B owners, or anyone else, to hold whatever filthy set of prejudices they want to.
Like many other people I'd rather they kept their bigotry to themselves but we live in a free country so they can say what they want. They have a prefect right to turn away whomsoever they choose; however the law says they are not entitled to do this.
I can see how their "rights" might have been violated, but what about the right of two perfectly law-abiding citizens to be treated with a modicum of respect and dignity?
Personally, if I'd have been one of the gay couple, I wouldn't have reported them to the police (or even the papers). What I would have done, however is to warn the gay community not to bother with this particular guest house.
I just wonder if these two are such Christians why they can't be a bit more "forgiving" and try to do a bit of good in the world, instead of making things a teeny bit worse.
What kind of person worries about "sodomy" between consenting adults in this day and age? Given all the problems that exist all over the world, haven't they got something more important to worry about?
My final point - one of the tiresome things about the pious is not only that they believe they have a monopoly on morality but that they think they deserve special treatment, that their rights override everyone else's.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Just because the Law says you *can* do something, does not mean that you *have* to do that thing. I can eat bacon, Jews cannot, for example. Are you worried about the Talmud vs. UK law?
Sorry, but what point are you trying to make here?
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by mrflange
your speak for your self old boy,i would hate to think two bottom boys were doing each other up the wrong un in my proberty.quote:Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Mike
As a libertarian, I respect the rights of the B&B owners, or anyone else, to hold whatever filthy set of prejudices they want to.
Like many other people I'd rather they kept their bigotry to themselves but we live in a free country so they can say what they want. They have a prefect right to turn away whomsoever they choose; however the law says they are not entitled to do this.
I can see how their "rights" might have been violated, but what about the right of two perfectly law-abiding citizens to be treated with a modicum of respect and dignity?
Personally, if I'd have been one of the gay couple, I wouldn't have reported them to the police (or even the papers). What I would have done, however is to warn the gay community not to bother with this particular guest house.
I just wonder if these two are such Christians why they can't be a bit more "forgiving" and try to do a bit of good in the world, instead of making things a teeny bit worse.
What kind of person worries about "sodomy" between consenting adults in this day and age? Given all the problems that exist all over the world, haven't they got something more important to worry about?
My final point - one of the tiresome things about the pious is not only that they believe they have a monopoly on morality but that they think they deserve special treatment, that their rights override everyone else's.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
mrflange,
That's just the sort of post that will get the whole thread pulled.
That's just the sort of post that will get the whole thread pulled.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by JonR
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I can eat bacon, Jews cannot, for example.
Strictly speaking, Mike, I'd assert here that observant Jews do not (eat bacon) - speaking as a non-observant Jew, and being picky
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by graham55
quote:Originally posted by Derry:
David's reference is correct. Any action against the discriminators would be via civil proceedings in tort.
Well, that's wholly incorrect.
A tort is an action for a civil wrong, brought between individuals in civil proceedings.
Any breach of the 2007 Regulations referred to here would be brought on behalf of the Crown in criminal proceedings.