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

[[TW]Fox]

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

Gay people are, presumably, not banned - just gay couples. When I was booking accomodation last year I found a few that said 'No couples under 25' so I couldnt book there. Had I gone on my own it would have been fine.

A B&B is someones home, it is up to them who they let in no matter how bizarre it may seem. I simply booked a room somewhere else.

 

[meghatronic]

I find the vitriolic Labour response more unpalatable than anything else. Cheap shots.

 

[Strife212]

Secret tape reveals Tory backing for ban on gays

The headline is so staggeringly misleading it's making the guardian seem like a cheap tabloid :/

 

[Naffa]

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

I will discriminate against religion and all it perpetuates. All of the hatred, all of the bigotry, all of the supremely unmoral teachings, yes.

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)?

It's got nothing to do with the property rights of the home owner. They're offering a commercial service that happens to be based in their home, and if they wish to do so, they should not be exempt from the law (Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, as cited in the OP).

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.

As I said above, if they wish to offer a commercial service, they should not be exempt from anti discrimination legislation.

 

[[TR]SweetSpotOz]

x

 

[Dolph]

I will discriminate against religion and all it perpetuates. All of the hatred, all of the bigotry, all of the supremely unmoral teachings, yes.

Then how can you object to the religious discriminating without being an utter hypocrite, especially given that secular society is hardly immue to hatred, bigotry or immorality.

I suppose at least you're honest enough with your irrational hatred.

It's got nothing to do with the property rights of the home owner. They're offering a commercial service that happens to be based in their home, and if they wish to do so, they should not be exempt from the law (Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, as cited in the OP).

And yet you'll happily strip the protection provided by the universal declaration of human rights away from those whose views you disagree with.

Can you not see the utter hypocrisy in your position?

As I said above, if they wish to offer a commercial service, they should not be exempt from anti discrimination legislation.

But they are also protected by anti-discrimination legislation, of a higher level than the act quoted Should that protection not apply to them, as it is the state that is discriminating against them by refusing to allow them their own rights. It's the catholic adoption agency argument (which they won) all over again.

 

[I get around]

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

Then we might as well have let the Nazis win the war.

This sort of thing, combined with their history of ruining this country, is why I will never vote for the con artists.
It says basically let people rely on their own consciences, most of the new generation don't even have a conscience, this is why we have police and armys. Religion explains the act of prejudice, it does not excuse it.
Christ, when will religious nutters wake up to reality.

 

[Naffa]

Then how can you object to the religious discriminating without being an utter hypocrite, especially given that secular society is hardly immue to hatred, bigotry or immorality.

Don't even try and compare secular society to religious society as it quite simply does not exist. When a society is formed on the values of Jefferson, Paine, Einstein, Russell, etc, then you may have the ghost of a point, but up until now, you don't. There is no civilised society on the planet that hasn't been influenced by religion.

I suppose at least you're honest enough with your irrational hatred.

I suppose that's something! If you think it's irrational to detest the preaching of homophobia, the debasement of women, the surrender of reason, then I don't really know if we can debate on the same level.

And yet you'll happily strip the protection provided by the universal declaration of human rights away from those whose views you disagree with.

Can you not see the utter hypocrisy in your position?

If you're referring to article 18, then absolutely. I'm not trying to stifle free speech, not at all. I'm not saying that these people don't have the right to these beliefs, and I would hope that you would not take that to be my position. That does not mean one cannot oppose the beliefs themselves.

But they are also protected by anti-discrimination legislation, of a higher level than the act quoted Should that protection not apply to them?

If you're referring to article 18 (yes, I did look it up), then absolutely. Of course people have the right to freedom of religion, again, I'm not trying to stifle free speech or free expression. No human right guarantees businesses the right to discriminate on grounds of sexuality.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Ricochet J; You have wrongly represented the article. Grayling made it very clear he thought that where people are renting out a room in their home as a B+B, they should have the right to choose who they want to come into that home. I know this is GD, but don't make stuff up.

No one mentioned hotels.

To the topic at hand - it is a gray area. When does a B+B become more of a commercial premise and less of a home, or vice-versa?

What I do not like is Labour accusing Grayling of "flying in the face of equality". All Labour are doing is prioritising the 'equality rights' of one group (gays) over another (Christians). It is hypocritical.

 

[Tombstone]

Then we might as well have let the Nazis win the war.

Hehehe isnt there an actual formula somewhere that shows that as soon as a discussion on the internet starts there is a precise calculation which can be used to show the time it will take for someone to inevitably mention the Nazis?

 

[PMKeates]

Hmm, I'm not sure of my opinion on this.

I guess my goals in this situation would be:

• Gay people not being discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality
• No legislation forcing B&B owners to allow certain kinds of people in to their home

It's a difficult situation. To not allow gay people to stay at your B&B is irrational and highly likely to be based on prejudice and ignorance, not past experience or knowledge.

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

If you look at the motives behind these sorts of restrictions, it's going to be based on stereotype or experience. The B&B owner is likely trying to ensure that peaceful and mature guests are not disturbed by the antics of a group of five 19 year olds, a dog barking throughout the night or a child making a mess at breakfast. There will of course be a quiet 22 year old couple who feel hard done by, or an old lady with a similarly old and geriatric Shih Tzu who can barely walk let alone remember how to bark, that feel somewhat discriminated against, but you can almost understand how that, without vetting each guest, there's the potential to negatively impact others' stay.

Additionally, those restrictions are based on things that will change or are within people's power to change. Without wanting to get in to a massive debate, homosexuality is more akin to race than being a dog owner.

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...

I think something like that would be worth a try. Not only would it prevent disappointment and frustration further down the line, but people who may not be the ones being discriminated against can make a concious decision, if they so choose, to avoid establishments that do discriminate. Then we hope that the good sense of the many will prevail.

 

[I get around]

Hehehe isnt there an actual formula somewhere that shows that as soon as a discussion on the internet starts there is a precise calculation which can be used to show the time it will take for someone to inevitably mention the Nazis?

It is true though, legal to ban gays? Thats just going backward.

Ever see in old movies, signs on shops "Whites only" on shops.
It's a disgrace, it makes the english look like uneducated, prejudiced chavs.

Thats the sort of thing the nazis would do, ban everyone who wasn't white, christian and able bodied from buying food. I expect the tories will start gassing pensioners soon.

 

[Dolph]

Don't even try and compare secular society to religious society as it quite simply does not exist. When a society is formed on the values of Jefferson, Paine, Einstein, Russell, etc, then you may have the ghost of a point, but up until now, you don't. There is no civilised society on the planet that hasn't been influenced by religion.

There have been a few that tried to stamp it out, thoroughly unpleasant places by all accounts.

I suppose that's something! If you think it's irrational to detest the preaching of homophobia, the debasement of women, the surrender of reason, then I don't really know if we can debate on the same level.

I think it's entirely irrational to only concern yourself with the negative aspects of religion, and ignore the positives.

If you're referring to article 18, then absolutely. I'm not trying to stifle free speech, not at all. I'm not saying that these people don't have the right to these beliefs, and I would hope that you would not take that to be my position. That does not mean one cannot oppose the beliefs themselves.

There's a world of difference between opposing the beliefs, and discriminating against those who hold them, you are doing the latter.

If you're referring to article 18 (yes, I did look it up), then absolutely. Of course people have the right to freedom of religion, again, I'm not trying to stifle free speech or free expression. No human right guarantees businesses the right to discriminate on grounds of sexuality.

Nor do they guarantee the right of the state to discriminate against religious beliefs, but that is what you are advocating.

The main thrust of human rights revolves around states, not individuals, and what the state can do. The state discriminating is far, far worse than individuals discriminating, and yet you wish to use state discrimination to try and address the problem of individual discrimination...

 

[Tombstone]

It is true though, legal to ban gays? Thats just going backward.

Ever see in old movies, signs on shops "Whites only" on shops.
It's a disgrace, it makes the english look like uneducated, prejudiced chavs.

No...really...its not true.

I really dont think that allowing someone to ban anyone they want from their premises is in any way like it was for people to live under Nazi rule. To even think that they are comparable is an insult to everyone who had to do just that.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

This.
people wearing burbury, whomever.

There, I draw the line.

 

[Naffa]

There have been a few that tried to stamp it out, thoroughly unpleasant places by all accounts.

However, my point still stands. And if you're talking about Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or even North Korea, they were and are all exceptionally religious states. Just not supernatural ones.

I think it's entirely irrational to only concern yourself with the negative aspects of religion, and ignore the positives.

I don't ignore the positives, but they're few and far between compared to the negatives. I should also point out, that just because good work is done in the name of a religion, it says nothing about the truth of it's preachments. And I still maintain (this was first proposed by Christopher Hitchens), that no moral action exists that's been carried out by a believer, that could not have been carried out by a non believer. However, I don't even need to ask you to think of an immoral action that could only have been committed by a person of religion, you've already thought of it.

(Sorry, getting too into the religion side, again ).

There's a world of difference between opposing the beliefs, and discriminating against those who hold them, you are doing the latter.

If I oppose the beliefs, and seek to remove them, surely there's not a world of difference between the belief and those that hold them?

Nor do they guarantee the right of the state to discriminate against religious beliefs, but that is what you are advocating.

The main thrust of human rights revolves around states, not individuals, and what the state can do. The state discriminating is far, far worse than individuals discriminating, and yet you wish to use state discrimination to try and address the problem of individual discrimination...

I don't think religion should play any part, whatsoever, in our society, nor our state. Especially our state and government, you're correct in saying. I do see where you're coming from, and what you're trying to say, so please don't think that my replies are coming from a wall of ignorance, in that respect.

I think if the state wants to have a society free of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc, and makes laws to that effect, how can it be right to make one group exempt? Is it mere surprise that the one group we would offer a free pass to is religion? (Genuine question).

 

[Dolph]

I think if the state wants to have a society free of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc, and makes laws to that effect, how can it be right to make one group exempt? Is it mere surprise that the one group we would offer a free pass to is religion? (Genuine question).

I think the rest of it is us retreading old ground, but the above is the key point, although I disagree with your phrasing of the question, so I will reword it slightly (if you don't mind).

If we want a society free of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, how should we handle it when two sets of discrimination conflict?

In this case, we have a conflict between the rights of homosexuals, and the rights of those who may not approve of homosexual behaviour for whatever reason (because it is not exclusively religious). How do we reconcile the conflict in rights, without running roughshod over one?

Break it down, at the two extreme positions, we have absolute rights for homosexuals enshrined in law (thereby discriminating against those who genuinely hold beliefs around whether it is acceptable behaviour, and remember, we all hold lots of beliefs about what sort of behaviour is acceptable in our eyes), and on the other we have absolute rights for those who disagree with homosexuals (as seen by previous, unjustifiable bans on homosexual behaviour).

To me, the compromise would lie somewhere between the two, rather than at one end or the other (as you appear to be advocating). Protecting homosexual behaviour in contexts where it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (for example, via their property rights) seems the perfect compromise position between two conflicting rights that we have a responsibility to protect.

This isn't unreasonable, it's the basis of our legal system, where the right to do something is limited when it would start to infringe the rights of others.

 

[meghatronic]

Then we might as well have let the Nazis win the war.

Well, great. That's the end of this thread. Godwin's law dictates this argument is over.

 

[JBuk]

Then we might as well have let the Nazis win the war.

This sort of thing, combined with their history of ruining this country, is why I will never vote for the con artists.
It says basically let people rely on their own consciences, most of the new generation don't even have a conscience, this is why we have police and armys. Religion explains the act of prejudice, it does not excuse it.
Christ, when will religious nutters wake up to reality.

Having the right to ban whoever you want from your premises would also include the right to ban Nazis

damn , I might have just created an infinite loop ,doh!

 

[Amp34]

Gay people are, presumably, not banned - just gay couples. When I was booking accomodation last year I found a few that said 'No couples under 25' so I couldnt book there. Had I gone on my own it would have been fine.

A B&B is someones home, it is up to them who they let in no matter how bizarre it may seem. I simply booked a room somewhere else.

Yep, I'm sure if the couple ordered two single rooms they would have been let in.

Not the best outcome obviously but then it should be the right of a small business owner who he/she serves.