Top Tory wants to deny Gay couples access to B and B’s

[sheffsand]

me and my friend (male also) have been turned away a few times at B&B's in Blackpool and never even said we were gay also in a twin bedded room - u get used to it!!

[danot]

Well, by the reasoning of some, the sweet, innocent, bigoted couple concerned, who run the B&B live "over the shop", which, supposedly, entitles them to decide whom they will serve and who they will not.

 

Apparently, in their tiny, bigoted minds, they are exempt. They don't have to treat those awful, filthy gays like decent human beings... ( )

 

Which, by extrapolation means that the corner - shopkeepers who "live over the shop" and pub managers (who also tend to "live over the shop") are also, then, entitled to discriminate against other Human beings, purely by virtue of their sexuality.

 

Well, consider us utterly bombed, right back into the dark ages then!

Furthermore, it wouldn't neccessarily have to be limited to the churches view on homosexuality. Afterall, someones religious views on homosexuality is nothing more than their personal passionate belief, therefore, ALL BIGOTS ie. racists, sexists, ageist, "anti-theists", that passionately disapprove of someone or something, would be well within their rights to do the same due their personal(passionate) beliefs... who needs religion?

[Gormenghast]

Arguing with an idiot is like teaching a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it only annoys the pig!

 

You said it PT.

[Fivetide]

they're being as stupid as their extreme views would suggest.

 

they have to let gay couples stay, but there's no law against decorating your b&b with anti-homosexual scripture, talking to them about anti-homosexual scripture and generally making it perfectly clear, legally, that gay couples aren't welcome whilst making it clear that if they choose to do so they can... but if they do they won't enjoy it

 

and then watch half of brighton de-camp there to enjoy a weekend being epic gay in their fundamentalist faces hahaha

[Rupert_Baehr]

...

and then watch half of brighton de-camp there to enjoy a weekend being epic gay in their fundamentalist faces hahaha

 

Not quite. Should homosexual people flaunt their homosexuality with the intention of causing distress to other people then they too could fall foul of the law.

 

When I was a teenager, 'queer bashing' was [i understand] a fairly popular pastime in the UK.

 

When I came to the UK, I didn't get involved in 'queer bashing' and indeed, I found that a number of the people I knew (admittedly a small number) were 'queers'. They were my friends before I learned about their sexual orientation, so it wasn't a problem.

 

A good thing really. One friend was a male ballet dancer. He became my friend when two other people decided that they were going to 'teach me a lesson' [dunno why] one night. I could cope with one of my assailants; he could (more than) cope with both. (If you want to go 'queer bashing' then I suggest you do NOT pick on male ballet dancers.:hihi:)

 

I have a number of friends (both male and female) who are homosexual. I've never found that to be at all strange. They are my friends because we get on well together; we do not try to tell each other how the other should behave.

 

The law is quite clear. You may not discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. If you don't like the law you may campaign to get it changed or you may put yourself in a position where you cannot fall foul of it. - Don't put yourself in a position where you may have to deal with customers if some of those customers might turn out to be homosexual.

 

That's the law. It is unequivocal.

 

The proprietors of that guest house claimed to be Christian. I disagree.

 

'Christians' are those who follow the teachings and examples of Jesus, are they not?

 

Did Jesus ever condemn a sinner? He was an Esseni (noted misogynists) yet he went out of his way to humble himself before 'fallen' women. Isn't there a story in the Bible about him being accused of wasting valuable oil on a 'fallen woman'? Wasn't Mary Magdalene a 'fallen woman'? Don't the gospels note that his resurrection was reported by women (and remember, he was an Esseni)?

 

Didn't he say something about: 'Let the one amongst you without fault cast the first stone'? Wasn't there a story about a man with a bit of sawdust in his eye?

 

According to his teachings, Christ didn't condemn anybody.

 

So how can some 'holier than thou' individual (or pair of individuals) claim to be 'Christians' when they turn people away? How many people did the guy they claim to follow turn away?

 

I don't like homosexuality. It doesn't appeal to me, so I don't indulge in it.

 

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, appeals to me considerably and - over the years - I've indulged in it whenever I can.

 

The fact that I don't like homosexuality doesn't mean that I dislike homosexuals, any more than the fact that I like heterosexuality means that I like (and attempt to jump) every female I meet.

 

People are people. Some I like; some I dislike.

 

Sex is (nowadays) what you kerry coal in.

 

Well ... sometimes.

[jeremyjh1]

Just to prove that the Tories are as nasty as ever, we have the Shadow Home secretary recorded as saying that the proprietors of Bed and Breakfast accommodation should have the right to reject Gay couples.

 

Just quite how he intends administering equality legislation is a mystery to me, what next will he allow them to reject people who like a drink.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm

 

No, he did not. Read the quote of his words.

 

"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. "

 

Are you saying that someone who has a problem with homosexuals should simply ignore that because consensus says so? That pretty much condemns any person who is Catholic.

 

In fact, to use your distortion of the 'facts' (i.e. the words that were spoken by the MP and not those words you would like others to believe were spoken) are you describing any Catholic person as 'nasty'?

 

Are Labour and it's supporters so desparate to cling to power (to reek more ruin and debt on this nation) that they have to make things up?

 

Mind, when Mandleson uses words like 'deception' I laugh.

 

Pot kettle black!!! Ha!

 

Keep him under lock and key if you want another term.

 

Better still, let him loose, let him be the voice of the left.

 

Bye bye Gordon, thanks for the last 13 years and the mess you've got us in. Time for someone else to sort it out.

[dell12]

Are you saying that someone who has a problem with homosexuals should simply ignore that because consensus says so? That pretty much condemns any person who is Catholic.

 

 

The problem with what he said is that fundementally discrimination of any kind is acceptable.

 

If the owners don't like black people can they refuse them entry?

 

Or what about unmarried couples?

 

Or Chinese people?

 

What this has to do with labour I don't know!

[jeremyjh1]

Well, by the reasoning of some, the sweet, innocent, bigoted couple concerned, who run the B&B live "over the shop", which, supposedly, entitles them to decide whom they will serve and who they will not.

 

Apparently, in their tiny, bigoted minds, they are exempt. They don't have to treat those awful, filthy gays like decent human beings... ( )

 

Which, by extrapolation means that the corner - shopkeepers who "live over the shop" and pub managers (who also tend to "live over the shop") are also, then, entitled to discriminate against other Human beings, purely by virtue of their sexuality.

 

Well, consider us utterly bombed, right back into the dark ages then!

 

Problem is, in any business, the owner or operator of that business is entitled to refuse to serve whomsoever he or she wishes.

 

I'm sure, in law, there is nothing that legally forces any business to accept trade of another business or individual (or individuals) if they do not wish to.

 

They do not have to give a specific or definitive reason like 'you're gay' or 'you're not white' or 'you're a woman'. They can simply refuse.

 

It's very murky waters, discrimination. Think of this way, a man who is a Muslim, but a total a**ehole, comes in to my shop and wishes to buy something. I refuse, because the man's a complete a**ehole. He goes bleating to the press that I have refused to sell him something because he's a Muslim and I am discrimating against them.

 

In this politically correct sensitive world we live in the accusation, however untrue, is damaging enough. To the wider public, who do not know the man is a complete t*sser, it doesn't matter. He's a Muslim and he's been refused something because he's Muslim.

 

What about the B&B owner, faced with a couple of obnoxious, foul-mouthed men who happen to be gay, refuses to give them a room - because of they way are conducting themselves. Should it be that, for fear of being branded a homophobe, the B&B owner should take the abuse and give them a room?

 

For many, it's all very simple to put situations in to pigeon-holes. Reality is, it's never that simple.

[jeremyjh1]

The problem with what he said is that fundementally discrimination of any kind is acceptable.

 

If the owners don't like black people can they refuse them entry?

 

Or what about unmarried couples?

 

Or Chinese people?

 

What this has to do with labour I don't know!

 

What has the assumed homophobic view got to do with the Tories?

 

For those whose view of life is simple - i.e. one Tory MP says something slightly homophibic = all Tories (and their supporters!!!) must be gay-bashing no-marks - I was trying to use the same (simple = stupid) logic.

 

The only thing labour has got to do with it is running the country in to the ground.

[icon76]

Problem is, in any business, the owner or operator of that business is entitled to refuse to serve whomsoever he or she wishes.

 

I'm sure, in law, there is nothing that legally forces any business to accept trade of another business or individual (or individuals) if they do not wish to.

 

They do not have to give a specific or definitive reason like 'you're gay' or 'you're not white' or 'you're a woman'. They can simply refuse.

 

It's very murky waters, discrimination. Think of this way, a man who is a Muslim, but a total a**ehole, comes in to my shop and wishes to buy something. I refuse, because the man's a complete a**ehole. He goes bleating to the press that I have refused to sell him something because he's a Muslim and I am discrimating against them.

 

In this politically correct sensitive world we live in the accusation, however untrue, is damaging enough. To the wider public, who do not know the man is a complete t*sser, it doesn't matter. He's a Muslim and he's been refused something because he's Muslim.

 

What about the B&B owner, faced with a couple of obnoxious, foul-mouthed men who happen to be gay, refuses to give them a room - because of they way are conducting themselves. Should it be that, for fear of being branded a homophobe, the B&B owner should take the abuse and give them a room?

 

For many, it's all very simple to put situations in to pigeon-holes. Reality is, it's never that simple.

 

That's not true.

 

If you refuse to provde services you have to give a lawful reason for doing so. So it's fine to not serve a drunk customer, or an aggressive customer, but just saying I'm not serving you and failing to give a reason can land you a discrimination charge.