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

meghatronic · 4 Apr 2010 at 08:21

rz30 said:
No the Tories haven't changed, they have been forced to look as though they have, but in reality they will catalyse - chaos, riots, pandemonium, hate, fear and greed!

Where have you been the last 12yrs? Those words would aptly describe new labour.

Von Smallhausen · 4 Apr 2010 at 08:35

Chris Grayling's words are not an attack on gays themselves and that is quite obvious.

Capmbell said:
As a gay man its completely backwards thinking.

However as always the media will blow this WAY out of proportion and labour some ammo for the pmqz on wed. Would be hilarious if Ashcroft & Homophobia came up in the same sentence.

I would be interested in your thoughts. Do you see Mr Grayling's words as an attack on gay people ?

drunkenmaster · 4 Apr 2010 at 08:51

campbell said:
As a gay man its completely backwards thinking.

However as always the media will blow this WAY out of proportion and labour some ammo for the pmqz on wed. Would be hilarious if Ashcroft & Homophobia came up in the same sentence.

But can I ask, why should your belief that its backwards thinking, mean more than the guy who owns the B&B?

As a straight man, I also think its daft for someone to not like gay people, but I think its worse that someone should be made to feel uncomftable with who they let in their house. Its his business and his choice, as I said before, someone refusing to let you stay at their B&B isn't hurting you, its hurting his pocket and nothing else. IF he wanted to prevent you buying a house in his village, thats a different matter completely.

Everyone should be 100% free to think, feel and do as they please as long as it causes no harm or difficulty to others. Just like you should be able to be gay without anyone treating you differently out in the big bad world, but that doesn't mean we can force someone to let you use THEIR business if it makes them feel uncomftable.

If someone stops black people coming into their business, its only hurting THEMSELVES, I'd not go in a store or stay at a hotel that refused to serve black people and many others would not use a store with an obvious a-hole of an owner.

People need to learn to treat everyone EXACTLY THE SAME, that means banning gays, or trekkies, or gingers, or extremely ugly people, or the french, the scottish, or english people. No one should be forced to have anyone they don't want in their business. Those people are just as entitled to not let the same people into their business's should they want.

Jono8 · 4 Apr 2010 at 08:57

robgmun said:
Lets examine what he actually said

I'm finding it difficult to find fault over what he actually said

me to

what he said makes complete sense to me.

Naffa · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:00

What it (eventually) boils down to, is whether you want to live in a society that tolerates discrimination against people based on their sexuality, or you do not. Yet again, we see the 'genuinely held principles of faith groups' severely retarding our society and our culture.

The sooner we get over this puerile mindset that people are 'different' because of their sexuality, the better.

robgmun · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:10

It's not that at all, the issue is 'when does one person's set of rights over rule anothers?'

Naffa · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:14

Well, if anything, that makes my case even simpler. :confused:

I believe people should have the same rights, regardless of their sexuality. 'Gay rights,' if you will. That is so, so much more important than respecting people's right to religious bigotry and hatred. I would hope that such ideals would be so far entrenched in our society now, that we wouldn't have to worry about comments like this.

Also, I run a B+B in my own home and to be honest, I couldn't really imagine any B+B asking a potential client what their sexuality is... :rolleyes:

I certainly would not want to live in a society where such a question would be posed.

EDIT: Is it just me, or does the Guardian appear to have mutated into the Daily Mail with this headline?

Secret tape reveals Tory backing for ban on gays

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

starfighter · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:31

You should be able to refuse to serve anyway at a private business but not because they are a certain race or have a certain sexual preference. Is it really that hard to make up a rubbish excuse.

Tombstone · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:32

JBuk said:
I think people should be free to ban whoever they want from their premises

This.

Whether its gays, blacks, white supremacists, romanian gypsies, people wearing burbury, whomever.

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:39

How many people object to other common B&B restrictions, such as:

No children
No couples under 25
No dogs
No group bookings under 25

And so on? There are many restrictions frequently put on B&B's that impact the ability of guests to stay there, some are entirely arbitrary (like the age ones above), and some are simply for the owners convenience or desire.

Tombstone · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:41

Dolph said:
How many people object to other common B&B restrictions, such as:

No children

No couples under 25

No dogs

No group bookings under 25

And so on? There are many restrictions frequently put on B&B's that impact the ability of guests to stay there, some are entirely arbitrary (like the age ones above), and some are simply for the owners convenience or desire.

Disgraceful !!!

Antiparentism !!
Ageism !!
Zoophilia !!
Agoraphobia !!

Sue em I say

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:42

naffa said:
Well, if anything, that makes my case even simpler.

Does it?

I believe people should have the same rights, regardless of their sexuality. 'Gay rights,' if you will. That is so, so much more important than respecting people's right to religious bigotry and hatred. I would hope that such ideals would be so far entrenched in our society now, that we wouldn't have to worry about comments like this.

So you don't actually believe people should have the same rights, because you'll happily directly discriminate against people's beliefs.

You don't believe that the property rights of someone who does not want to let a gay couple in their home are the same as the property rights of someone who does not want to let a couple under 25 in their home (which is perfectly legal)?

Also, I run a B+B in my own home and to be honest, I couldn't really imagine any B+B asking a potential client what their sexuality is... I certainly would not want to live in a society where such a question would be posed.

And that's absolutely fine. I probably wouldn't stay in a B&B that discriminated against people based on sexuality, race or religion, because that's not what I approve of. It doesn't mean I should demand their rights to do so are removed.

EDIT: Is it just me, or does the Guardian appear to have mutated into the Daily Mail with this headline?

Secret tape reveals Tory backing for ban on gays

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

It does appear so, yes.

Eriedor · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:45

Banning customers because they're gay is synonymous with banning customer because they are black, muslim, jew etc.

While i agree with the concept of people having the right to refuse service at their disgression it is a slippery slope if we let them base that on sexual discrimination.

Duke · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:47

[TW]Fox;16295407 said:
They should be free to choose who they offer accomodation to, just as we are free to choose not to award them with our business.

This ^^

BigglesPiP · 4 Apr 2010 at 10:48

He's basically saying people who run a B&B in their own house should - as far as the law is concerned - be capable of choosing who they let into their house. And a Hotel, which is a business should - legally - not be able to discriminate.

Regardless of whether this is in itself is right or wrong, using a gay couple as an example was a huuuuugely stupid idea. Just asking for a media frenzy and Labour criticism right in front of the election.

Red Porsche · 4 Apr 2010 at 11:08

BigglesPiP said:
He's basically saying people who run a B&B in their own house should - as far as the law is concerned - be capable of choosing who they let into their house. And a Hotel, which is a business should - legally - not be able to discriminate.

Regardless of whether this is in itself is right or wrong, using a gay couple as an example was a huuuuugely stupid idea. Just asking for a media frenzy and Labour criticism right in front of the election.

/Thread

Yas786 · 4 Apr 2010 at 11:19

JBuk said:
I think people should be free to ban whoever they want from their premises

This +1

If people dont want certain people on their property due to their sexual orientation or religious beliefs then its up to them...i wouldnt really have a problem if i was turned away for being muslim...its unfair but you cant force people to accept you or your beliefs or sexual orientation etc.

markweatherill · 4 Apr 2010 at 11:31

I'm more disappointed that the person was 'secretly taped' and the content of the tape given a meaning it doesn't have, just to start some controversy.

Xenoxide · 4 Apr 2010 at 11:39

meghatronic said:
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)?

When they decided to go from a personal home to a commercial establishment offering a service.

People should be allowed to refuse entry to whoever they want when it comes to their house. However a B&B is not a house.

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 11:46

Xenoxide said:
When they decided to go from a personal home to a commercial establishment offering a service.

People should be allowed to refuse entry to whoever they want when it comes to their house. However a B&B is not a house.

Since when was there a requirement to serve in the UK?

You can refuse service for a whole variety of reasons as a business owner, with only a few exceptions. The question is, should homosexual behaviour in someone else's home be one of them.