Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
anyone saying they have a freedom to do so is a pleb. they're a business operating under british civil law not a theocracy and as such they have to respect the laws of the land.
He's just saying that people should be allowed to choose who they allow into their house, which is what distinguishes a bed & breakfast from a normal hotel (which does have to obey anti-discrimination legislation).
What's quoted in that article and in other places is MILES away from any kind of proposal for a 'ban on gays' - it's one minister trying to draw some kind of line between the rights of homeowners and the rights of individuals to live how they want. I really don't see what the fuss is about.
bed and brekfast is covered under anti-disrcimination legislation. So either they let gays in, or they don't have a B & B
It's their choice to use their house as a place of business. Would it also be ok if they were turning people away based on their race or nationality?
From the quotes in the article it doesn't sound like Grayling meant homosexuals specifically, but just used it as an example.
The issue is one over whether people have the right to choose who they allow into their house. As a B&B is both a private residence and a business it means that you have people compelled under the law to maybe admit people into their home who they might not want, be it because of their sexuality, their religion, their race, or because they just don't like the look of 'em.
I'm not saying that a B&B shouldn't obey the legislation - and in this day and age, any establishment that's openly racist or homophobic or whatever is going to find itself in trouble quite quickly through boycotts or whatever. I suppose it's kind of a minor legal issue, where under the law some people don't have the same homeowners' rights as others.
whether people have the right to choose who comes into their house is absolutely wrong, and doing so undermines the importance of the existing legislation. A B&B may well be both residence and a business, but the owners have no obligation to retain their house as a B&B.
If they want to make money from opening their house up to paying guests, then they follow the same rules as everyone else. If they want to discriminate, they've got every right, so long as they don't charge anyone; but under no circumstances should they be allowed to be running a business in that case.
I'm just trying to explain why this is a storm in a teacup and to act like this is some Tory plot to 'ban the gays' is fucking ridiculous.
but this is the sort of thing that I'd like to see clear direction on in terms of the current shadow lot. There's a lot of talk from them about how different their perspectives are on equality, but a no-brainer issue like this should not be divisive..
this sounds fucking incredible.
bnbs should have to follow equality law, because becoming a bnb is a business decision that is made in full knowledge that businesses simply can't descriminate...but in what way is the essence of this thinking a good thing? freedom is freedom, yes, but it has to be mitigated in some way.
I think there's a lot of parallel here with the smoking ban. The instinct in the Conservative Party is to let business owners make the decision as to whether to ban smoking within their establishments or not, and to let customers choose whether they want to go somewhere where they might have to risk inhaling smoke or not. The don't think it's the government's place to decide that something they feel is important (in this case, health) is more important than a traditional civil right for the business owner.
Grayling's comments are very much in line with this tradition within conservative thought. I don't think it's really a sign of any kind of malicious intent or homophobic undercurrent within the Conservative Party (though there's no doubt that such a trend is there, especially amongst the Widdecombes of parliament). It's just one more example of the Tories struggling to hide their real (and potentially repulsive to many) policies beneath a very vacuous, shiny, PR-polished exterior.
Not in such general terms, anyway. He's since said "I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country", which would seem to have particular significance to gay people. It's a bit of a catch 22, I think. The alternative would effectively be to say that devout Christians should not be allowed to run B&Bs because they are devout Christians, which is surely no more liberal an idea.
The far deeper, and more pertinent, issue here is whether people should be allowed to justify their actions simply with religious scripture. I, personally, believe not, but in a society where we're continually told to respect the (religious) beliefs of others, I think Grayling is ultimately reflecting the moral position most people claim to hold on the issue, whether it's one they actually hold deep down or not. In fact my experience is generally people don't even know what they *mean* when they say you should respect other people's religious beliefs, but nonetheless, it's hardly something you could get away with disputing in public.
if most devout christians don't bother with most of the punish-by-stoning crimes of the old testament then why should they get special dispensation to keep this one up?
Jesus wasn't even *born* when that was written. This isn't a theological discussion, anyway. I don't think the fact that many, many people sincerely derive homophobia from their religious beliefs is in question.
so regardless of where these folk have developed their prejudices from it shouldn't really be used to legitimise discrimination to a degree that breaks the law of the land.
for NOT being gay.
Is there a hetero version of Stonewall that I can get to throw a hissy fit on my behalf?
No? Oh well, never mind.
bouncer at a gay club who was being harassed by her gay colleagues.
Bizarrely, they used 'breeder' as a derogatory term for straights (and she didn't look much like Kim Deal).
I guess they hadn't figured out that no more breeding would mean no more gays.
tell the local council, though tell the club first so they can have a chance to change their policy.
we are talkign about the uk here. Not amsterdam.
...and the Netherlands is generally considered to be rather more socially liberal than the United Kingdom.
Simple as that innit?