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

James J · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:16

Dolph said:
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'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.

Let it be known, thats the first thing I've ever agreed with Dolph on since I started posting in General Discussion!

+1

Jono8 · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:18

Well maybe the more sensible option would be to ban sex and then all the gay and under 25 couples can stay wherever the hell they want.

Naffa · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:31

Dolph said:
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 think that summarises the crux of our differing opinions and the logical end to the debate. Hopefully we should have clarified where we stand, but should anybody desire any further clarification, I would only be too happy to give it.

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.

Also, that is a good point.

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:34

naffa said:
I think that summarises the crux of our differing opinions and the logical end to the debate. Hopefully we should have clarified where we stand, but should anybody desire any further clarification, I would only be too happy to give it.

Also, that is a good point.

I would ask that you leave the very important caveat in around making it a requirement to advertise prejudice, as it is a key part of my position.

Tombstone · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:43

Hatter The Mad said:
It is a gray area. When does a B+B become more of a B+B than a home, and vice-versa

When a gay says "you must let me in, its the law !!"

jas72 · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:43

i don't agree and i'm shocked at the amount of homophobes we have here in this forum.

Tombstone · 4 Apr 2010 at 15:45

jas72 said:
i don't agree and i'm shocked at the amount of homophobes we have here in this forum.

To be fair, I dont think that everyone who agrees is necessarily a homophobe. Quite a few on here, from what I have read, dont see the sexual preference as the issue.

tomos · 4 Apr 2010 at 17:05

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 it becomes a business. if i want to ban someone from my place for whatever reason i should be able to even if it's because they have a stupid haircut. no one has a right to enter my property anyway but once it's a business then it's different.

Tombstone · 4 Apr 2010 at 17:07

tomos said:
when it becomes a business. if i want to ban someone from my place for whatever reason i should be able to even if it's because they have a stupid haircut. no one has a right to enter my property anyway but once it's a business then it's different.

I've been to bars and pubs before where I have been refused entry because I had jeans on. One particularly well known chain refused me entry during the world cup because I had an England hat on.

robgmun · 4 Apr 2010 at 17:58

Tombstone said:
To be fair, I dont think that everyone who agrees is necessarily a homophobe. Quite a few on here, from what I have read, dont see the sexual preference as the issue.

Agreed, it's a fundamental princple that we're debating here

[TW]Fox · 4 Apr 2010 at 18:03

jas72 said:
i don't agree and i'm shocked at the amount of homophobes we have here in this forum.

I think there is a difference between saying 'I think people should be allowed to chose who they serve' and 'OMG I AM A HOMOPHOBE' dont you?

meghatronic · 4 Apr 2010 at 18:06

Tefal said:
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.

"If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end."

Read more

Tefal · 4 Apr 2010 at 18:15

meghatronic said:
"If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end."

Read more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

In the mans own words

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Anything else is peple trying to hijack it for an easy "win" on the same level the other side used a nazi comparision in a bid for an easy "win"

Jono8 · 4 Apr 2010 at 18:41

jas72 said:
i don't agree and i'm shocked at the amount of homophobes we have here in this forum.

I think you should re - read the thread

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 20:31

jas72 said:
i don't agree and i'm shocked at the amount of homophobes we have here in this forum.

I'm shocked at the ability of some to completely misinterpret the discussion...

James J · 4 Apr 2010 at 20:42

[TW]Fox;16298887 said:
I think there is a difference between saying 'I think people should be allowed to chose who they serve' and 'OMG I AM A HOMOPHOBE' dont you?

Homophobia is the primary reason why people wouldn't want homosexual's staying at their B&B. The secondary is religious retardedness.

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 21:00

James J said:
Homophobia is the primary reason why people wouldn't want homosexual's staying at their B&B. The secondary is religious retardedness.

But the vast majority of the discussion in this thread has not revolved around the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, but around the rights someone has over their own home when it is also a place of business, and the long held right in the UK to serve who you wish.

[TW]Fox · 4 Apr 2010 at 21:12

James J said:
Homophobia is the primary reason why people wouldn't want homosexual's staying at their B&B.

Correct but thats homophobia on the part of the B&B owner not the posters in this thread.

We dont have to agree with somebodies point of view in order to beleive they should have freedom of choice.

The_Abyss · 4 Apr 2010 at 22:47

Issues such as this of sexual preference will not be resolved easily until religion is stopped from having preferential status in the nation's legal system.

Dolph · 4 Apr 2010 at 22:50

The_Abyss said:
Issues such as this of sexual preference will not be resolved easily until religion is stopped from having preferential status in the nation's legal system.

Issues of religious discrimination are not going to be resolved until we stop giving sexuality preferential status in the legal system...

The universal declaration of human rights, and the EU declaration of human rights, and our own human rights act, all recognise both sexuality and religious beliefs as protected.

Why should one be abandoned before another?