Grayling suggests B&Bs should be able to bar gay guests
Discussion
I have to say I agree with him. It's a question of freedom to be able to choose who you let into your bed and breakfast and who you don't.
Now the PC apparatus goes into outrage mode and everyone is making a pose of being more outraged than the next person.
Even had a gay-rights guy on the radio saying the B&B owners should get out of owning B&B's if they were not prepared to accomodate gays. I find that to be astonishing arrogance.
Link
But shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said hotels should not be allowed to discriminate in that way.
Labour and the Lib Dems said the Tories would allow discrimination "to thrive".
Mr Grayling later said he was looking at being "sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups" but was not seeking a change in the law.
The secret recording has been published on the Observer newspaper's website.
The BBC's political correspondent Norman Smith said the stance taken by Mr Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, "put him at odds with the law".
'Right to decide'
Mr Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, made his comments after a speech at the Centre for Policy Studies in London on Wednesday.
He was at the think tank to talk on the subject of "A Conservative Home Office."
During the recording, Mr Grayling is heard responding to a question from the audience about civil liberties.
I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country
Chris Grayling
He said: "I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.
"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 their 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.
"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."
'Awkward and embarrassing'
Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 no-one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality.
However in March, Cambridgeshire gay couple Michael Black and John Morgan were turned away from a guest house in Berkshire because the owner said it was against her policy to accommodate same-sex couples.
Mr Black told the BBC that it "wasn't just a question of feeling angry on our own behalf.
"It was the fact that [it] was an example of illegal discrimination. It happened to be against a gay couple, it could be against people because they're Muslim, or black, or for any other reason."
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'
The BBC's Norman Smith said it was "awkward and embarrassing" for the shadow home secretary, who would have to enforce equality legislation should the Conservatives win the election.
In a statement, Mr Grayling said: "Any suggestion that I am against gay rights is wholly wrong - it is a matter of record that I voted for civil partnerships.
"I also voted in favour of the legislation that prohibited bed and breakfast owners from discriminating against gay people.
"However, this is a difficult area and on Wednesday I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country.
"But the law is now clear on this issue, I am happy with it and would not wish to see it changed."
'Private views'
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, told the BBC he was "deeply saddened" by the comments, which would give voters "pause for thought".
He said people were not forced to open their homes as commercial premises and they should abide by the law.
John Morgan and Michael Black criticised Chris Grayling's comments
"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'," he said.
What was more worrying, he added, was that Mr Grayling said these sorts of things in private but not in public.
Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised for Section 28 - the controversial law brought in by his party in 1988 banning local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light.
And in February, openly gay Tory frontbencher Nick Herbert said there had been a "self-evident" change in his party's attitude to gay people.
But the culture secretary Ben Bradshaw, who is openly gay, told the BBC: "Not only is this displaying the fact that the Conservatives have not really changed on this and many other issues, but here you have the shadow home secretary advocating that people break the law."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said "Chris Grayling's plan would allow discrimination to thrive".
Now the PC apparatus goes into outrage mode and everyone is making a pose of being more outraged than the next person.
Even had a gay-rights guy on the radio saying the B&B owners should get out of owning B&B's if they were not prepared to accomodate gays. I find that to be astonishing arrogance.
Link
Grayling suggests B&Bs should be able to bar gay guests
A key Conservative has been recorded suggesting people who run bed and breakfasts in their homes should have the right to reject homosexual guests.
But shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said hotels should not be allowed to discriminate in that way.
Labour and the Lib Dems said the Tories would allow discrimination "to thrive".
Mr Grayling later said he was looking at being "sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups" but was not seeking a change in the law.
The secret recording has been published on the Observer newspaper's website.
The BBC's political correspondent Norman Smith said the stance taken by Mr Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, "put him at odds with the law".
'Right to decide'
Mr Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, made his comments after a speech at the Centre for Policy Studies in London on Wednesday.
He was at the think tank to talk on the subject of "A Conservative Home Office."
During the recording, Mr Grayling is heard responding to a question from the audience about civil liberties.
I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country
Chris Grayling
He said: "I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.
"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 their 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.
"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."
'Awkward and embarrassing'
Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 no-one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality.
However in March, Cambridgeshire gay couple Michael Black and John Morgan were turned away from a guest house in Berkshire because the owner said it was against her policy to accommodate same-sex couples.
Mr Black told the BBC that it "wasn't just a question of feeling angry on our own behalf.
"It was the fact that [it] was an example of illegal discrimination. It happened to be against a gay couple, it could be against people because they're Muslim, or black, or for any other reason."
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'
The BBC's Norman Smith said it was "awkward and embarrassing" for the shadow home secretary, who would have to enforce equality legislation should the Conservatives win the election.
In a statement, Mr Grayling said: "Any suggestion that I am against gay rights is wholly wrong - it is a matter of record that I voted for civil partnerships.
"I also voted in favour of the legislation that prohibited bed and breakfast owners from discriminating against gay people.
"However, this is a difficult area and on Wednesday I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country.
"But the law is now clear on this issue, I am happy with it and would not wish to see it changed."
'Private views'
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, told the BBC he was "deeply saddened" by the comments, which would give voters "pause for thought".
He said people were not forced to open their homes as commercial premises and they should abide by the law.
John Morgan and Michael Black criticised Chris Grayling's comments
"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'," he said.
What was more worrying, he added, was that Mr Grayling said these sorts of things in private but not in public.
Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised for Section 28 - the controversial law brought in by his party in 1988 banning local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light.
And in February, openly gay Tory frontbencher Nick Herbert said there had been a "self-evident" change in his party's attitude to gay people.
But the culture secretary Ben Bradshaw, who is openly gay, told the BBC: "Not only is this displaying the fact that the Conservatives have not really changed on this and many other issues, but here you have the shadow home secretary advocating that people break the law."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said "Chris Grayling's plan would allow discrimination to thrive".
Colonial said:
But it's not a private house. It's a business.
If it was, say, a cafe attached to a house I fail to see how it would be any different.
It's pointless discrimination. Plain and simple.
Don't want gays staying in your house? Don't open a B and B.
What if they object to homosexuality on religious grounds?If it was, say, a cafe attached to a house I fail to see how it would be any different.
It's pointless discrimination. Plain and simple.
Don't want gays staying in your house? Don't open a B and B.
Staying in a B&B is not a human right.
If 'those of faith' have the right to ban Gays from their B&Bs as a matter of principle then where does it end?
Should members of certain Mormon Churches who believe that Black people went against the word of God and are thus cursed be allowed to ban Blacks from their B&Bs How about the Moslems who think apostates should be stoned to death for turning their back on Muhammed. Should Moslems be allowed to ban such people from their establishments?
Of course one could argue that Property rights supersede the rights of the individual and thus property owners have every right to decide who they let or do not let into their property.
Should members of certain Mormon Churches who believe that Black people went against the word of God and are thus cursed be allowed to ban Blacks from their B&Bs How about the Moslems who think apostates should be stoned to death for turning their back on Muhammed. Should Moslems be allowed to ban such people from their establishments?
Of course one could argue that Property rights supersede the rights of the individual and thus property owners have every right to decide who they let or do not let into their property.
SmoothRB said:
Colonial said:
But it's not a private house. It's a business.
If it was, say, a cafe attached to a house I fail to see how it would be any different.
It's pointless discrimination. Plain and simple.
Don't want gays staying in your house? Don't open a B and B.
What if they object to homosexuality on religious grounds?If it was, say, a cafe attached to a house I fail to see how it would be any different.
It's pointless discrimination. Plain and simple.
Don't want gays staying in your house? Don't open a B and B.
Staying in a B&B is not a human right.
If you refused gays service in a pub it would be the same. Discrimination against two adults who are doing something entirely legal which affects no one.
5unny said:
If 'those of faith' have the right to ban Gays from their B&Bs as a matter of principle then where does it end?
That is a slippery slope fallacy.This is just an example of the state and law inteferring more and more in our lives. Trying to legislate away every social 'problem'.
Staying in a B&B is not a human right.
SmoothRB said:
5unny said:
If 'those of faith' have the right to ban Gays from their B&Bs as a matter of principle then where does it end?
That is a slippery slope fallacy.This is just an example of the state and law inteferring more and more in our lives. Trying to legislate away every social 'problem'.
Staying in a B&B is not a human right.
But nor is it a get out clause for punishing two people for no good reason.
It's not legislating away a problem. It's about recognising that banning people from staying in a b and b for no good reason isn't the way a supposed civilised country should act.
SmoothRB said:
Colonial said:
If you refused gays service in a pub it would be the same. Discrimination against two adults who are doing something entirely legal which affects no one.
A religious person may not agree with that.Of course your liberal arrogance would dismiss their beliefs.
How does it cause harm? Come on? Apart from the possibility of poo nuggets on sheets I fail to see how it causes any problems.
Gay relationships are legal. Gay couples are legally protected from discrimination. This is discrimination against a gay couple. Therefore it is wrong.
Don't want to comply with that? Then don't run a B&B.
SmoothRB said:
5unny said:
If 'those of faith' have the right to ban Gays from their B&Bs as a matter of principle then where does it end?
That is a slippery slope fallacy.This is just an example of the state and law inteferring more and more in our lives. Trying to legislate away every social 'problem'.
Staying in a B&B is not a human right.
Would you be happy for a gay B&B owner to turn away religious people?
Or for a racist B&B owner to turn away them pesky darkies and jam rolls?
JohnnyJones said:
As a heterosexual man I don't want to get into a bed recently vacated by a homosexual couple. (Unless one of them was Lindsay Lohan). Joking aside though isn't that my right? Or not?
If staying in a B&B/Hotel, how would you ensure that you are not sleeping in a "bed recently vacated by a homosexual couple"?JohnnyJones said:
As a heterosexual man I don't want to get into a bed recently vacated by a homosexual couple. (Unless one of them was Lindsay Lohan). Joking aside though isn't that my right? Or not?
Don't B&B owners wash the sheets between customers? I suggest you raise your hotel budget if that isn't the case.
JohnnyJones said:
As a heterosexual man I don't want to get into a bed recently vacated by a homosexual couple. (Unless one of them was Lindsay Lohan). Joking aside though isn't that my right? Or not?
So your problem is with the B&B's cleanliness? I'd be pretty disappointed if they didn't change the bedding between all guests...B&B's are not hotels and so can choose who they allow to stay under their roof, as a contractor I was regularly refused at B&B's but failed to gain public outrage as I am the wrong colour, sexuality and gender.
Allowing the owners to choose their guests unless they are a different sexuality or race to the owners is discrimination.
Allowing the owners to choose their guests unless they are a different sexuality or race to the owners is discrimination.
Yeast Lord said:
Does this now mean that I can go pray in a mosque and I will be welcomed with open arms regardless of my faith or sex.
No, just as white or indian police officers are barred from joining the black police officers club.Racism and intolerance are OK in one direction only apparently.
I can't believe this story has got more air time than labour mp's taking money to influence policy. Is this how these stupid labour idiots think they can win an election after busting the economy and enacting a law for everything but the air we breathe. Right now even their putting through a digital economy bill that will regulate the net, their the scum of the earth.
stitched said:
Yeast Lord said:
Does this now mean that I can go pray in a mosque and I will be welcomed with open arms regardless of my faith or sex.
No, just as white or indian police officers are barred from joining the black police officers club.Racism and intolerance are OK in one direction only apparently.
Don't be a retard.
stitched said:
Yeast Lord said:
Does this now mean that I can go pray in a mosque and I will be welcomed with open arms regardless of my faith or sex.
No, just as white or indian police officers are barred from joining the black police officers club.Racism and intolerance are OK in one direction only apparently.
Try researching your claims
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff