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

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



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

Cool, so that means I and my GF/wife (under 25) should be able to go into a B&B and have a room, with it being discrimination if we are refused for being a couple under 25?

No difference to the gay couple, unless of course you think gay couples should have more rights than people under 25? In which case you are discriminating...
 
A B&B is not a home. It is a business where some choose to live on the premises. They should be required to abide by the same rules, laws and regulations as every other business.
 
I could see an odd conversation creeping up at the reception.

Are you gay? Yes

Sorry not allowed to stay.

Whilst I agree you're allowed to turn anyone away, there is no way you can tell who is who without asking some seriously personal questions which the customers are not obligated to share. :\
 
Von Smallhausen said:
I would be interested in your thoughts. Do you see Mr Grayling's words as an attack on gay people ?
Click to expand...

Well Mr Graylings words do merit being a homophobic after listening to the recording and it is a bit worrying that our future home secretary thinks in such a way. It should have me wound up but honestly it i dont care.

However its great to have something out in the open like this and hopefully some good will come of it.

The serious truth is when booking into certain hostels or b&bs we would book as friends and ask to share a room with singles as to not cause offense. Its ridiculous i know but the truth. But what seriously do they think gay men and the under 25z do?
 
I realise that most gays are normal people, but I am afraid I have the NIMBY approach.

If I had a hotel, I would allow gays in it, however if they are the mincing Alan Car type I would tell them to **** off.
 
meghatronic said:
Well, great. That's the end of this thread. Godwin's law dictates this argument is over.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.


Godwins law simpliy states that the longer and internet "debate" goes on the probibility of Hitler/the nazis being used rasies to 1.
 
dbmzk1 said:
A B&B is not a home. It is a business where some choose to live on the premises. They should be required to abide by the same rules, laws and regulations as every other business.
Click to expand...
I'm going to make a wild stab in the dark and suggest that you have no experience in B&Bs.

A B&B can be as small as you, dbmzk1, renting out your spare room for some extra money. That can be a B&B.

Or it can be as professional as a small hotel, a main business.

The larger and more professional it is the less descriminatory you can (or should) be. Hence why Hotels were ignored in the first place.

A small B&B doing it for extra money can be as picky as they want. If someone puts in a request and the B&B owner doesn't like them for any reason whatsoever then:

rooms taken/full
problem with something
not open for business on that day

You don't need to say "No, i'm not giving you a room, you're far too fat, the bed's probably going to get damaged."

It's a load of rubbish suggesting it has to be law just to allow B&B owners a say in who they rent rooms to. It wasn't an official suggestion anyway, just some rat sneaking out some random discussion.
 
campbell said:
Well Mr Graylings words do merit being a homophobic after listening to the recording and it is a bit worrying that our future home secretary thinks in such a way. It should have me wound up but honestly it i dont care.

However its great to have something out in the open like this and hopefully some good will come of it.

The serious truth is when booking into certain hostels or b&bs we would book as friends and ask to share a room with singles as to not cause offense. Its ridiculous i know but the truth. But what seriously do they think gay men and the under 25z do?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

mglover said:
If I had a hotel, I would allow gays in it, however if they are the mincing Alan Car type I would tell them to **** off.
Click to expand...

A Conservative Party spokesman told OcUK News.
 
On one hand if the B&B is their home they might just not feel comfortable with a homosexual couple in their premises and that is fair enough.
But on the other hand if they want to be a B&B should they be able to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality? If they want to be in business surely they should accept the fact that they might get a gay couple and allow them in, or if they are so hell bent against it, maybe they shouldnt be the business of a B&B.

I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but i do know that you wouldn't discriminate someone for a job on their sexual orientation. that is just none of your business. If a B&B don't want to accept gays (which seems a more acceptable form of discrimination then saying no blacks/asians/irish/etc) then maybe they shouldnt be opening a B&B.
 
LeJosh said:
I could see an odd conversation creeping up at the reception.

Are you gay? Yes

Sorry not allowed to stay.

Whilst I agree you're allowed to turn anyone away, there is no way you can tell who is who without asking some seriously personal questions which the customers are not obligated to share. :\
Click to expand...

I don't think so, the example brought up earlier was all to do with two men wanting to share a double bedroom. If they went in as two singles, or asked for two singles then there would probably have been no issue.

campbell said:
Well Mr Graylings words do merit being a homophobic after listening to the recording and it is a bit worrying that our future home secretary thinks in such a way. It should have me wound up but honestly it i dont care.

However its great to have something out in the open like this and hopefully some good will come of it.

The serious truth is when booking into certain hostels or b&bs we would book as friends and ask to share a room with singles as to not cause offense. Its ridiculous i know but the truth. But what seriously do they think gay men and the under 25z do?
Click to expand...

Have the sexez! Ewww...:p

I agree, it's not something that should happen, but respect and equality should work both ways. Most of the homophobic/religious people are quite old in my experience so in 20-30 years time with progressive change there won't be many left.

mglover070588 said:
I realise that most gays are normal people, but I am afraid I have the NIMBY approach.

If I had a hotel, I would allow gays in it, however if they are the mincing Alan Car type I would tell them to **** off.
Click to expand...

So you hate camp people? I'm with you there (well hate is too strong a word). I have no problem with gay people (infact a lot of my friends are) but camp people wind me up the wrong way!:(

(Camp /= gay, people can be straight and camp and gay people generally arent camp)...
 
campbell said:
But what seriously do they think gay men and the under 25z do?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Have sex.

Weirdly lots of people seem to have a funny attitude about people having sex in their home. Which really begs the question 'So why turn your house into a B&B in the first place...' but I think I'd rather be turned away when disapproved of whilst giving them money, do you not agree?
 
Dolph said:
snip

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.
Click to expand...
This may seem like something of a cop out, but allow me, if you will, to answer a question with a question. In order to keep my retort brief, I would simply ask you whether you think a similar right should be extended those that wouldn't want black people to stay in their B+B, would not want straight people, would not want people based on their religious beliefs, etc?

I return to my original point of whether you want to live in a society that tolerates discrimination on these grounds, or you do not.
 
naffa said:
This may seem like something of a cop out, but allow me, if you will, to answer a question with a question. In order to keep my retort brief, I would simply ask you whether you think a similar right should be extended those that wouldn't want black people to stay in their B+B, would not want straight people, would not want people based on their religious beliefs, etc?
Click to expand...

I'll happily answer, with a strict caveat (the same as with the bar on homosexual couples) that I would argue it has to be clearly public, and that any business who did this would instantly lose my custom.

Yes, I would see that right extended.

I would hope it would not be used, and that any business that used it failed pretty quickly, but I don't feel that sort of restriction, currently, is necessary, fair or appropriate.

I return to my original point of whether you want to live in a society that tolerates discrimination on these grounds, or you do not.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not, but I'd rather that lack of tolerance to such practices comes from people, than from the law. When it comes from the people, it's genuine, when it comes from the law, it doesn't actually change people's views (or if it does, it's not in the way intended), and just masks what could be an ongoing problem within people's attitudes, and just lead to more indirect forms of discrimination.

The only party that must be prevented from discriminating in this way is any mechanism of the state, because of the differing nature and the monopoly of force the state holds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom