Shadow Home Secretary: Hotel Owners Should Be Able To Ban Gays

Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
12,957
Secret tape reveals Tory backing for ban on gays

The Tories were embroiled in a furious row over lesbian and gay rightson Saturday after the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, was secretly taped suggesting that people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should "have the right" to turn away homosexual couples.

The comments, made by Grayling last week to a leading centre-right thinktank, drew an angry response from gay groups and other parties, which said they were evidence that senior figures in David Cameron's party still tolerate prejudice.

In a recording of the meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies, obtained by the Observer, Grayling makes clear he has always believed that those who run B&Bs should be free to turn away guests.

"I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences," he said. "I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home."

He draws a distinction, however, with hotels, which he says should admit gay couples. "If they are running a hotel on the high street, I really don't think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes."

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, said the comments would be "very alarming to a lot of gay people who may have been thinking of voting Conservative".

He added: "The legal position is perfectly clear. If you are going to offer the public a commercial service – and B&Bs are a commercial service – then people cannot be refused that service on the grounds of sexuality. No one is obliged to run a B&B, but people who do so have to obey the law. "I don't think anyone, including the Tories, wants to go back to the days where there is a sign outside saying: 'No gays, no blacks, no Irish.'"

Labour said that Grayling's comments ran contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which state that no one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality.

Grayling voted in favour of the regulations, which apply to the provision of "accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment".

Last month, a Christian B&B owner in Cookham, Berkshire, was reported to the police for refusing to take in a gay couple as guests. Susanne Wilkinson said she had expected a man and woman, but when two men turned up she did not feel she could accommodate them because to do so was "against her convictions". The couple said they were considering suing, not for money, but "for a principle".

Chris Bryant, the Europe minister, who last weekend became the first gay MP to be married in the Commons, said from his honeymoon in Edinburgh: "Anybody who thinks that the Tory party has changed should think what it would be like to have Chris Grayling as home secretary. It is impossible to draw a distinction between bed and breakfasts and hotels. It is very clear that very senior Tories have not realised that the world has moved on."

A Conservative spokesperson said last night that Grayling had been clear about the obligations on hotel owners, but declined to be drawn on his views on B&Bs: "Chris Grayling was absolutely clear that in this day and age a gay couple should not be turned away from a hotel just because they are gay couple."

The row will alarm David Cameron as he prepares for a general election that looks certain to be called on Tuesday. The Tory leader has gone out of his way to win over gay and lesbian voters by stressing his new-look party's liberal credentials. Last year, he apologised for section 28, the law passed by Margaret Thatcher's Tory government in the late 1980s that bans the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Cameron has also voted in favour of civil partnerships.

However, his progress in attracting the gay vote has been halted by a series of disputes involving his own MPs and MEPs. Tory MEPs last year refused to support a motion that condemned a new homophobic law in Lithuania.

Cameron was also left embarrassed during a recent interview with Gay Times, broadcast by Channel 4 News, in which he admitted he did not know his party's position on a series of votes involving gay rights issues in the UK and European parliaments.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Chris Grayling's plan would allow discrimination to thrive, as every bigot was given a licence to opt out of equality rules. These views… show how far the Conservative party still has to travel before reaching the modern age."

The culture secretary Ben Bradshaw, who is openly gay, said: "What is critical at this election is whether David Cameron is for real and whether his party has actually changed. Yet again the mask has slipped."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/03/tory-tape-gays-bed-breakfast



My thoughts on this are this will cause a huge politcal row. Do you think Chris Grayling will be dropped from the Shadow cabinet? Personally, I don't think the Tories have changed at all. No doubt Labour will play this to their advantage, the same way Conservatives would have if the tables were turned. It's interesting to see which political party does the most self inflicting damage before the general election. Not looking good for the Tories at all. I think the Ashcroft scandal will re-emerge in PMQs too. Why wouldn't Labour raise the issue, after all?
 
This is in another thread.

Nevertheless, summary would be at what point would someone's freedoms (gay couple) and rights overide another's (B&B owners)?
 
I think people should be free to ban whoever they want from their premises

If average joe gay couple came to a B&B then I think it's wrong to descriminate against their sexual orientation. After all they've done nothing wrong and it might also break the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
 
If average joe gay couple came to a B&B then I think it's wrong to descriminate against their sexual orientation. After all they've done nothing wrong and it might also break the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
It does, but it's another crock of ****, as per my previous post.
 
I think people should be free to ban whoever they want from their premises

I agree.

I guess technically he is advocating the breaking of the equality law, however if you own somewhere, even if using it as a business, you should have the right to bar people from coming in and using it.

Just more political posturing by newspapers and politicians, making a mountain out of a molehill...:rolleyes:
 
I agree.

I guess technically he is advocating the breaking of the equality law, however if you own somewhere, even if using it as a business, you should have the right to bar people from coming in and using it.

Just more political posturing by newspapers and politicians, making a mountain out of a molehill...:rolleyes:
Whilst I agree, where is the line drawn?

No gays...? No Irish? No Blacks? No women? Slippery slope.
 
If average joe gay couple came to a B&B then I think it's wrong to descriminate against their sexual orientation. After all they've done nothing wrong and it might also break the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

But then if that couple happened to contain someone you disliked personally?

You can't ban them as it would be against the regulation...
 
Baring/banning people from your business usually requires abit of common sense though. Ie if people look the sort to be trouble makers then of course your not gonna want to give them a room but your average gay couple? Proper homophobic nonsense
 
Whilst I agree, where is the line drawn?

No gays...? No Irish? No Blacks? No women? Slippery slope.

I know, however I think the rights to bar entry to someone from your property should be above the rights for that person to enter your property.

I'd suggest (although I haven't really thought about it) that if you only run a small company then it should be fine, run a large company or a chain then, like the mp said, you shouldn't.

It's also not really in the interests of a small business owner to be turning people away so...
 
Baring/banning people from your business usually requires abit of common sense though. Ie if people look the sort to be trouble makers then of course your not gonna want to give them a room but your average gay couple? Proper homophobic nonsense

And if it's on religious grounds?
 
Baring/banning people from your business usually requires abit of common sense though. Ie if people look the sort to be trouble makers then of course your not gonna want to give them a room but your average gay couple? Proper homophobic nonsense

The fact that it's nonsense isn't a reason to restrict it though. If it's truely nonsense, it will damage the business, and hence quickly be abandoned.

I would happily advocate a requirement to state any biases in any advertisments, and I wouldn't use somewhere that discriminated arbitrarily like that, but one thing I wouldn't advocate is discriminating against property owners to 'address' discrimination against others...
 
It's there business and probably their living space as well, of course they should be allowed to turn whoever the hell they want away.
 
I think people should be free to ban whoever they want from their premises

Yes, being PC shouldn't actually infringe on anyones rights. A hotel owner should be as free to refuse service to Nazi's, as gays, or people who wear lots of yellow, people between 5ft and 6ft, or really whoever they want.

Its the owners reputation to be hurt and no one has the god given right to stay in a hotel said person owns.

Morally, we can all decide what we think is right or wrong, legally people should be able to have WHATEVER views they want and only be accountable if people actually suffer due to discrimination.

I find it hard to believe some gay people are suffering from being refused service at a hotel where they know they aren't liked, considering the choice to go to dozens of hotels that won't treat them like crap, wheres the issue?
 
By pressuring the B&B owners to allow these people to stay would be forcing the ideals of the guests on the religious beliefs of the owners.

If they don't want them to stay because of their beliefs, however much you disagree with them - they should be entitled to refuse them to stay.

Im all for equality but not when you are forcing your ideals onto others. There are plenty of other B&Bs they could have stayed at.
 
I think people should be free to ban whoever they want from their premises

It's as simple as this. It's their business, premises and their choice, if the guests don't like there is always somewhere else to go.
 
By pressuring the B&B owners to allow these people to stay would be forcing the ideals of the guests on the religious beliefs of the owners.

If they don't want them to stay because of their beliefs, however much you disagree with them - they should be entitled to refuse them to stay.

Im all for equality but not when you are forcing your ideals onto others. There are plenty of other B&Bs they could have stayed at.
How are any ideals, other than tolerance, being forced on the owners?
 
Back
Top Bottom