BBC News - Grayling suggests B&Bs should be able to bar gay guests

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".

Yes, so it may, but it is a new law, and one which takes no account of the human rights of the B&B owners.
The law should never have been brought in. It is election time, and that means dirty smears campaigns.
I wonder what the public support is for this law which forces people to have undesirable guests in their B&B homes.

Chris Grayling: Tory backing for ban on gays revealed in secret tape | Mail Online

Gay rights campaigners said that his remarks, secretly recorded at a think-tank seminar last week in a suspected Labour 'dirty tricks' operation, were in breach of equality laws.

Just as I thought.

The Landlord of a pub has the right to refuse service, without giving a reason.

Yet a home owner has no right to decide who does and does not sleep under their roof?

Lunatics have not only taken over the asylum, they're building new ones!

I don't believe he just restricted it to Christians. I believe he later specified that all religious folk should have the right to do so.
I believe the Christian example was because it was relevant. However, I do entirely agree with him.

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".

Gay rights campaigners said that his remarks, secretly recorded at a think-tank seminar last week in a suspected Labour 'dirty tricks' operation, were in breach of equality laws.

I think they are wrong, by forcing people to do something which is in breach of their religious beliefs is a breach of the discrimination laws of this country, the EU and many UN conventions.

Who you choose to do business with is up to you, and if you don't want people in your home it is your right to refuse entry.

Chris Grayling should be applauded for speaking out.

If I ran a B&B I would not want Gays in my home now I have children, not that I don't trust them with Kids as that is daft, but simply i would not want to confuse my Kids with this unnatural form of relationship. What the people do in their private lives with consenting adults is up to them..but not under my roof.

Having worked away from home for most of my adult life ,I have on occasions had to share accomadation with workmates.Be it B&B,s site huts or Five star hotels,I have never been asked if I was a poofter.
Why do poofters have to announce it to the world,why cant they just keep it under their hats, book into the accomadation and keep the noise down as would hetrosexual couples ?

I'll tell you why, Because they are wired up wrong

It seems to me that the Labour Party's obsession with "equality" and "diversity" have left us in a position where if you are a member of a certain minority group, say a homosexual or a Muslim, you appear to have more rights than other minorities or even the majority. Surely a society that is free and liberal has room to accept individual morality, ethics and conscience, even if this means the individual's actions discriminate against someone else.

I actually think its right for B&B owners to be able to decide who they allow into their home. Not for the reasons cited above though, all that "unnatural" and "wrong" rhetoric, its got nothing to do with that at all. This isn't an issue of morality, warped or otherwise, its about liberty and personal freedom. If you run a business from your own home, then you have the right to decide which people you provide a service for. If you want to not allow people based on income, race, class, sexuality, whether or not they like Marmite, etc, then that makes you an ignorant dick, but we have human rights legislation to allow people to be ignorant dicks. Its their right. And it is our right to call them on it. This type of top-down equality leglislation simply WILL NOT work in changing behaviour, if people continue to hold the bile-fueled, grey matter deprived nonsense I've quoted below they are not going to change their minds 'just cuz' the EU told them to. Its fighting a losing battle and is actually counter-productive.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Having worked away from home for most of my adult life ,I have on occasions had to share accomadation with workmates.Be it B&B,s site huts or Five star hotels,I have never been asked if I was a poofter.
Why do poofters have to announce it to the world,why cant they just keep it under their hats, book into the accomadation and keep the noise down as would hetrosexual couples ?

I'll tell you why, Because they are wired up wrong

Please offer the scientific basis for this wrong wiring.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

It seems to me that the Labour Party's obsession with "equality" and "diversity" have left us in a position where if you are a member of a certain minority group, say a homosexual or a Muslim, you appear to have more rights than other minorities or even the majority. Surely a society that is free and liberal has room to accept individual morality, ethics and conscience, even if this means the individual's actions discriminate against someone else.

Exactly "appear" to! Human rights are human rights because they are universal to all humans.
As Doc says though everyone should have the right to turn down the custom of anyone else on whatever grounds they like (no matter how stupid), their loss will be another businesses gain.

From the opinions being expressed on here, though we are a small minority, this could backfire on Labour.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Exactly "appear" to! Human rights are human rights because they are universal to all humans.
As Doc says though everyone should have the right to turn down the custom of anyone else on whatever grounds they like (no matter how stupid), their loss will be another businesses gain.

In terms of our current 'human rights', as an example I think you'll find that one's sexuality trumps one's right to act on conscience; at least one adoption agency, who dealt with the 'hardest to place' children, has been forced to close because they would not place a child with a gay couple as to do so would go against their religious beliefs, yet to discriminate against the gay couple would under current legislation be unlawful. It is perhaps interesting to note that the same agency also would not place a child with an unmarried straight couple for the same reason (sex outside marriage) but would place a child with a homosexual who was no in a relationship. I see no universiality here Opinionated.

As for 'human rights', those under the HRA/ECHR would be better termed 'political rights' as the primary purpose of the Convention Rights is to prevent governing parties from subverting the democratic process in order to create a totalitarian state.

Originally Posted by DTE

I actually think its right for B&B owners to be able to decide who they allow into their home. Not for the reasons cited above though, all that "unnatural" and "wrong" rhetoric, its got nothing to do with that at all. This isn't an issue of morality, warped or otherwise, its about liberty and personal freedom. If you run a business from your own home, then you have the right to decide which people you provide a service for. If you want to not allow people based on income, race, class, sexuality, whether or not they like Marmite, etc, then that makes you an ignorant dick, but we have human rights legislation to allow people to be ignorant dicks. Its their right. And it is our right to call them on it. This type of top-down equality leglislation simply WILL NOT work in changing behaviour, if people continue to hold the bile-fueled, grey matter deprived nonsense I've quoted below they are not going to change their minds 'just cuz' the EU told them to. Its fighting a losing battle and is actually counter-productive.



Please offer the scientific basis for this wrong wiring.

A pragmatic post and, despite the intellectual superiority stance much loved by DTE, on the button. Irrespective of the route to a view, if we agree on a conclusion I am content.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

A pragmatic post and, despite the intellectual superiority stance much loved by DTE, on the button. Irrespective of the route to a view, if we agree on a conclusion I am content.

I have 3 year old socks that would feel interllectuallly superior when debating with Streetwalker over homosexuality

Alas, freedom and rights, I knew thee well.
Why is one not allowed to decide whom one serves in ones home? It's ridiculous. Any individual should be able to turn away someone for whatever reason they see fit, after all it is their home. By forcing people to change through legislation is counter productive and declares that you have lost. It shows you cannot win in debate so you must act through force.

This Labour Governments obsession with equality and rights of the minority; as well as their general track record in regards to rights i.e. terrorism, merely leads us down a path where no one enjoys the rights we should have. I should be able to turn away black people from my BnB because I want to. I would lose out and another business would gain from my prejudice, however, it is my right to do that.

Lets clear one thing up, I hate and deplore this Government as much as any normal human being, but it is unfair to blame them solely for this liberal clap trap we are currently discussing part of. This situation goes back several governments and has been a creeping, insidious invasion for a long time.

Whilst I do not hold with how Streetwalker worded his post, I am sorry to have to say that there is something inherently different in the way many (not all) Homosexual couples present themselves, and for that matter how Homosexuals do so.

Examples....When was the last time you say a "Heterosexual and Proud" march? When did you see a "Heterosexual Rights" march? I think we can all agree that all people should be treated equally and if they happen to be homosexual then that is their business and no-one else's, but all this rights over common sense rubbish and right to march to say your proud crap needs to end.

Incidently, I find it a travesty of morality that homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children. This will teach children a confused message about a subject that many struggle with in their puberty years as it is, partly thanks to the confusing and mixed messages society gives out, but also it will cause them problems at school too...we all know how cruel children can be when someone is perceived "different".

To be honest, if they want a child, then the woman need to stop playing with plastic willies and the men need to stop playing with arse holes and do what nature intended the way nature intended it...Other than that, live and let live, we are all human and all equal.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Examples....When was the last time you say a "Heterosexual and Proud" march? When did you see a "Heterosexual Rights" march? I think we can all agree that all people should be treated equally and if they happen to be homosexual then that is their business and no-one else's, but all this rights over common sense rubbish and right to march to say your proud crap needs to end.

Knowing full well this is going to go off topic at a rate of knots.... When was the last time a heterosexual had to hide their true nature? When was the last time they went to prison for it? Extremely rare to be bullied and beaten up for being heterosexual. There are no heterosexual pride marches because they are not necessary, if you want to organise one there's nothing stopping you - be a little on the dull side though wouldn't it probably - I mean for me it's the feathered headdresses that make pride events worth watching.

Incidentally, I find it a travesty of morality that homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children. This will teach children a confused message about a subject that many struggle with in their puberty years as it is, partly thanks to the confusing and mixed messages society gives out, but also it will cause them problems at school too...we all know how cruel children can be when someone is perceived "different".

So what we actually need is more pride marches so that once it is fully accepted it would be OK for a loving couple to offer an abandoned child love and protection!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Knowing full well this is going to go off topic at a rate of knots.... When was the last time a heterosexual had to hide their true nature? When was the last time they went to prison for it? Extremely rare to be bullied and beaten up for being heterosexual. There are no heterosexual pride marches because they are not necessary, if you want to organise one there's nothing stopping you - be a little on the dull side though wouldn't it probably - I mean for me it's the feathered headdresses that make pride events worth watching.

Are you seriously saying that in modern Britain there is a chance of someone going to prison for it? These pride marches are unnecessary. Creating a heterosexual pride parade would be declined permission for some politically correct and ******** reason.

So what we actually need is more pride marches so that once it is fully accepted it would be OK for a loving couple to offer an abandoned child love and protection!

No if you make more of these marches more people will get pissed off with them.
We are a more reserved people, a lot of British people don't want to see homosexual couples in the open...
To be honest, a lot of us don't like seeing heterosexual couples in the open -_- It is unnecessary. You can engage in your little activities at home...

The Shadow Home Secretary's (and the Major's) vision of Britain:


http://dogonablog.files.wordpress.co..._no_blacks.jpg


Forward with the Conservatives to the 1950s!

Originally Posted by Balthazar

The Shadow Home Secretary's (and the Major's) vision of Britain:


http://dogonablog.files.wordpress.co..._no_blacks.jpg


Forward with the Conservatives to the 1950s!

Your normal distortion Balthazar! I never mentioned Irish, Blacks or Dogs! I'm a dog lover, me!

I simply don't accept that it is a fair law, which prevents people turning away people who they don't want in their own home.

The law makes it a criminal offence if you allow paying guests to smoke in your home, but conversely also makes it a crime to turn away two sexual deviants, whose perversion is expressly against the teachings of several religions. To enforce the latter law when the B & B proprietor holds such beliefs, is unjustified religious prejudice. At least Christians wouldn't stone the poor bastards to death, which is what would happen in many Islamic states.

Now here is the real conundrum. You run a B & B and you have young children. A Catholic priest, over for a seminar from the Emerald Isle, knocks on your door for lodgings. Do you turn him away because he is Irish? a Catholic? or a pedophile?

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

their own home.

Therein lies the problem. If you're operating a B&B the building ceases to be just your own home. It's your own home which is also a place of business. I would be perfectly entitled to ban from my home persons whom, I discovered, only perform heterosexual sex in the missionary position. That would be my right. A practitioner of vanilla sex? Out the door you go! But if I transformed my home into a business, a B&B, and tried to ban vanilla-sex-perverts I'd be up before the beak, and quite right too. Those providing goods and services must behave themselves.


http://goossun.com/b/uploaded_images...ing-783674.jpg

Welcome to Cameron's Britain!

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Therein lies the problem. If you're operating a B&B the building ceases to be just your own home. It's your own home which is also a place of business. I would be perfectly entitled to ban from my home persons whom, I discovered, only perform heterosexual sex in the missionary position. That would be my right. A practitioner of vanilla sex? Out the door you go! But if I transformed my home into a business, a B&B, and tried to ban vanilla-sex-perverts I'd be up before the beak, and quite right too. Those providing goods and services must behave themselves.

You and I will of course disagree on this and most other issues, as we usually have in the past.

Fortunately although fundamentally superficial in most of your posts, you are also amusing in your own way, and my first reaction is to chuckle at your rather transparent games, rather than to take offence.

But my gosh, you must have some time on your hands to be able to find all these historical pictures. Worried that a Tory victory will stop the long term benefits?

You obviously think you know about the sex life of wealthy, whitey! Well I've got news for you! Sometimes we have the light on, and no skid marks on the sheets from overstretched and incontinent sphincters.

Ah so this is a gay bashing thread. Its so nice that conservatives can discuss homosexuality so calmly.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

The law makes it a criminal offence if you allow paying guests to smoke in your home,

which is also bull****, and should be changed

but conversely also makes it a crime to turn away two sexual deviants,

nice homophobia there, I do hope these B & Bs don't allow adulterous couples to book rooms there. I mean there's a whole commandment devoted to that one. Whats that you say? ITS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS?! Ah ok then.

whose perversion is expressly against the teachings of several religions.

So is evolution. Thats it, no evolutionary scientists allowed in here either!

To enforce the latter law when the B & B proprietor holds such beliefs, is unjustified religious prejudice. At least Christians wouldn't stone the poor bastards to death, which is what would happen in many Islamic states.

Which has what to do with the price of fish?! Who cares about Islamic countries? How is what happens there relevant to this AT ALL?

Now here is the real conundrum. You run a B & B and you have young children. A Catholic priest, over for a seminar from the Emerald Isle, knocks on your door for lodgings. Do you turn him away because he is Irish? a Catholic? or a pedophile?

I'd turn him away because he's obviously delusional and might corrupt my kids with tales of the magical cloud man and/or want to have sex with them safe in the knowledge his mate the bishop would cover it up afterward.

I said in my previous post this is not about warped perceptions of morality, something you seemed to agree with, only to spout more warped morality afterwards. My opposition to this comes from the fact I can't see it working as a ploy to change behaviour ie. to make people more accpeting of homosexuals. If anything it'll do the opposite. However it doesn't change the fact that B&B owners who refuse gays are still in the wrong, but as usual all the conservatives band together with their perceived moral superiority and the tried and tested arguments about marches and parades come out for another airing. I'm starting to agree with Balthazar on this, I mean if people are so intolerant of modern society, then why go into the business of letting strangers into your home in the first place?!

Originally Posted by DTE

Ah so this is a gay bashing thread.

It's a great thread, showing the Nasty Party in full voice. Even nice old buffers, and Tory Moderates, like the Major are showing they're the same old Tories underneath: bigotted, full of hate, out of step with modern Britain, sex-obsessed, wanting one law for themselves and another for those not sharing their sexual hangups.

http://revcom.us/i/096/Court1962.jpg

Originally Posted by DTE

Ah so this is a gay bashing thread. Its so nice that conservatives can discuss homosexuality so calmly.



which is also bull****, and should be changed



nice homophobia there, I do hope these B & Bs don't allow adulterous couples to book rooms there. I mean there's a whole commandment devoted to that one. Whats that you say? ITS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS?! Ah ok then.



So is evolution. Thats it, no evolutionary scientists allowed in here either!



Which has what to do with the price of fish?! Who cares about Islamic countries? How is what happens there relevant to this AT ALL?



I'd turn him away because he's obviously delusional and might corrupt my kids with tales of the magical cloud man and/or want to have sex with them safe in the knowledge his mate the bishop would cover it up afterward.

I said in my previous post this is not about warped perceptions of morality, something you seemed to agree with, only to spout more warped morality afterwards. My opposition to this comes from the fact I can't see it working as a ploy to change behaviour ie. to make people more accpeting of homosexuals. If anything it'll do the opposite. However it doesn't change the fact that B&B owners who refuse gays are still in the wrong, but as usual all the conservatives band together with their perceived moral superiority and the tried and tested arguments about marches and parades come out for another airing. I'm starting to agree with Balthazar on this, I mean if people are so intolerant of modern society, then why go into the business of letting strangers into your home in the first place?!

You are nearly as obsessive as Balthazar. The minute someone mentions immigration you shout racism, as soon as someone points out that homosexuality is a deviant sexual practice you shout homophobia, and as soon as someone refers to a faith or religion you shout delusional. You then wrap it all up in catch all terms like hate, intolerance etc. Many would think this is politically correct pot kettle and black. In fairness someone just has to diasagree with Balthazar on any issue, and the little sausage yelps racism, homophobia and insults your seventeenth century ancestors.

For the record I am not homophobic; it is not a necessary qualification to dispassionately recognise that homosexuailty is a deviant sexual practice, which is against many religious teachings and moral codes. I accept the right of consenting adults to enjoy whatever turns them on, but in the privacy of their own homes, not in the privacy of someone elses when it fundamentally breaches their faith or beliefs.

This issue is a straightforward collision of two conflicting human rights. That of the individual to have the freedom of expression to follow his/her faith or beliefs and that of the individual to follow their sexual predilections. I believe that the former human right should prevail in my own home, irrespective of whether I run it as a B & B or not.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

It's a great thread, showing the Nasty Party in full voice. Even nice old buffers, and Tory Moderates, like the Major are showing they're the same old Tories underneath: bigotted, full of hate, out of step with modern Britain, sex-obsessed, wanting one law for themselves and another for those not sharing their sexual hangups.

http://revcom.us/i/096/Court1962.jpg

Another interesting picture from the archives, I had missed your distorted inventiveness.

What a vivid imagination you must have to dig all those negatives out of this story.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

What a vivid imagination you must have to dig all those negatives out of this story.

Major, dear old chap, don't blame me if you weren't instructed at school about what happens if legal safeguards aren't in place to protect minorities from discrimination in the provision of goods and services. I love you to bits but am not responsible for your poor education.

http://tankthetories.com/wp-content/...hites-only.jpg

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Major, dear old chap, don't blame me if you weren't instructed at school about what happens if legal safeguards aren't in place to protect minorities from discrimination in the provision of goods and services. I love you to bits but am not responsible for your poor education.

http://tankthetories.com/wp-content/...hites-only.jpg

Now you little sausage, don't go over the top with the emotional bit! You know public demonstrations of emotion don't go down well with us Conservative chaps. I would never dream of holding you responsible for my education, whether good bad or indifferent.

Well Major Major, it seems the crazy dam has broke and all the nuts waters are flooding through the thread. Here we go:

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

You are nearly as obsessive as Balthazar. The minute someone mentions immigration you shout racism,

No actually, I do not do this.

as soon as someone points out that homosexuality is a deviant sexual practice you shout homophobia,

But of course, sexually deviancy means peadophillia, beastiality or incest. Your definition to include homosexuality IS homophobic.

and as soon as someone refers to a faith or religion you shout delusional.

Thats because they are. I'm just saying what every person not of faith thinks, its just usually we're too polite to say it.

You then wrap it all up in catch all terms like hate, intolerance etc. Many would think this is politically correct pot kettle and black.

I never used the word hate. I think not tolerating someone's relationship is pretty much the definition of intolerance. Its all there in the wording.

For the record I am not homophobic;it is not a necessary qualification to dispassionately recognise that homosexuailty is a deviant sexual practice, which is against many religious teachings and moral codes. I accept the right of consenting adults to enjoy whatever turns them on, but in the privacy of their own homes, not in the privacy of someone elses when it fundamentally breaches their faith or beliefs.

So I ask again, adultery is a cardinal sin. Sex outside marriage is forbidden. So by your logic B&Bs must insist all heterosexual couples provide marriage certificates right? In fact why stop there, lets insist upon following all Christian doctrine when on the premises? I'm sure people will be queueing up to live like monks for a weekend

This issue is a straightforward collision of two conflicting human rights. That of the individual to have the freedom of expression to follow his/her faith or beliefs and that of the individual to follow their sexual predilections. I believe that the former human right should prevail in my own home, irrespective of whether I run it as a B & B or not.

Well that view runs contrary to the law, so coming from a potential future home secretary, it seems only to confirm that the Tories will say one thing in public to get elected, one thing in private, and then presumably that same thing again when elected. They haven't changed, they just have better P.R.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Another interesting picture from the archives, I had missed your distorted inventiveness.

What a vivid imagination you must have to dig all those negatives out of this story.

I don't understand why you can't see the parallels, or don't see any relevance in them.
Discrimination against LGBTs is the "thin end of the wedge" as Simon Schama described it on Question Time last night. If the principle that Chris Grayling stated about "having the right to decide who is in their own home" applies to gay people in this situation then why not to black people, jews and the disabled?

Originally Posted by DTE

But of course, sexually deviancy means paedophilia, bestiality or incest. Your definition to include homosexuality IS homophobic.

An interesting point. (I corrected your spelling, DTE, I hope you won't mind)
Who decided this distinction? You, or the law, and is the law always right?
Still, we've done all this "is homosexuality normal" stuff to death on this forum. Just gets a bit boring doesn't it?

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I don't understand why you can't see the parallels, or don't see any relevance in them.
Discrimination against LGBTs is the "thin end of the wedge" as Simon Schama described it on Question Time last night. If the principle that Chris Grayling stated about "having the right to decide who is in their own home" applies to gay people in this situation then why not to black people, jews and the disabled?

I have two comments

1/ It is their house they should be able to do what they like -_-
2/ If a BnB in someones house turns away people due to sexual preference, race, colour etc then they will lose business.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I don't understand why you can't see the parallels, or don't see any relevance in them.
Discrimination against LGBTs is the "thin end of the wedge" as Simon Schama described it on Question Time last night.

I like Simon Schama but he uses a pretty poor argument; a police force is the thin edge of the wedge to a police state.

Ok so Im a caveman. The bottom line is I dont want to know,Im not interested and I dont want poofs or what the liberal elite think we should know, throwing thier sexual preferances at me at every turn.Yes they are wired up wrong are unatural and should hide in the shadows.They have certian cromosones missing in their makup. its the way they are,they are unfortunate,they are missing out on the delights of tits and beaver for a smelly arsehole and a joint wank

I think that has made it clear and I wont be posting on poofs threads again,especially since I keep getting pop ups about gay dating !

What a bunch of children have posted in this thread. So a couple have made the decision to turn away a couple of shirt lifters from their home in which they earn extra cash as a B&B. They turned them away on religious grounds as is their right both morally and legally..despite what some people think.

Then some people here blow it out of proportion like a bunch of silly children and claim this is a return the segregation and the differentiation of Blacks and Whites. Well fools, it was always illegal to separate a business into Blacks and Whites in this country, that only happened in the United States of Discrimination. Yes some people put up signs that excluded Blacks, Irish and a raft of others, but actually there were laws that made it illegal back then..they were exceptionally rarely enforced though, much to the shame of this country.

Now I do find it ironic that it is the silly loony left brigade that are highlighting this historic inaccuracy when historically it is the socialist nations of the planet that have persecuted Homosexuals far worse than anyone ever did in the Democratic world. Up until 1996 it was actually illegal to be a Homosexual in Russia, it carried a sentence of 10 years hard labour. In China, North Korea, Burma, North Vietnam and for that matter Iran, Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim states you simply get executed.

Before people post misleading, historically inaccurate pictures that shows how pathetic they are being, they should research the subject matter properly.

Being homosexual is not a crime and nor should it ever be. If a person is genetically wired differently and they simply are not attracted to the opposite sex then that is their business and no-one else's. But homosexuals need to stop wearing it like it is a badge of honour and banging on about how proud they are to be Gay.

This is rubbish, it is like proud to be Black...you can only really be proud of something you chose, and none of us can choose to be Black, White, Straight or Gay..it's how nature puts us together. Everyone should simply live with it and leave others alone just because they are different.

But if you run a B&B and you do not want someone as a paying customer because of a religious belief, it does not matter how stupid we think they may be, it should be their right, just as it is the right of the homosexuals to use the "exit only"!!

The gay-hatred exhibited on this thread illustrates beautifully:

1. Why B&B owners should have the book thrown at them if they discriminate against gays. If they play the "Christian" card (like some wretched black playing the "race" card) the fine should be doubled. Such people bring the Christian church into disrepute.

2. Why Chris Grayling is a repellent gay-basher unfit for civilized company.

3. Why the British Tory Party is still the Nasty Party and doesn't deserve to hold power.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I don't understand why you can't see the parallels

Because his dirty little mind is awash with images of gay people enjoying themselves in bed with a bit of harmless rumpy-pumpy. He's like the Catholic Church - obsessed with sex. He probably had a nice gay lover at his snooty private school - they helped each other through the appalling experience with a spot of innocent nooky behind the bike sheds - and the memory causes him a rush of blood to the head.

Seriously Major. There's no shame in having had gay sex at your private school. Many British private schools were hotbeds of homosexuality with "beautiful fags" lusted after by the prefects and bought and sold for "tuck." Blame your parents for placing you in an unsafe environment. Don't take it out on some nice gay couple wanting a relaxing weekend at a Brighton guesthouse.

http://tankthetories.com/wp-content/...trade-only.jpg

Originally Posted by Balthazar

The gay-hatred exhibited on this thread illustrates beautifully:

The way in which so many socialists can't see real life and real people's views for what they are, real. Instead they'll continue to try to impose their theories of how they think things should be on other people regardless of anything else......

Perhaps I should add that I'm certainly not opposed to social change, and I'm certainly not in favour of racism, however regardless of what you or many other left-wingers might like to think, that change has to come from within society itself and not be forced on it by government, not matter how well meaning they might think they are. If society as a whole believes it's wrong to have overt public displays of homosexuality, or society as a whole believes that anyone should be able to have the right to refuse to employ or serve someone else, and I will qualify that by saying as long as it's not simply racism without there being a valid reason for the refusal, then that should be the accepted status quo, and government should not overtly interfere. They can and should educate people to see things differently, but they cannot force change on society with a plethora of 'equalities' and 'rights' legislation.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

The gay-hatred exhibited on this thread illustrates beautifully:

1. Why B&B owners should have the book thrown at them if they discriminate against gays. If they play the "Christian" card (like some wretched black playing the "race" card) the fine should be doubled. Such people bring the Christian church into disrepute.

2. Why Chris Grayling is a repellent gay-basher unfit for civilized company.

3. Why the British Tory Party is still the Nasty Party and doesn't deserve to hold power.



Because his dirty little mind is awash with images of gay people enjoying themselves in bed with a bit of harmless rumpy-pumpy. He's like the Catholic Church - obsessed with sex. He probably had a nice gay lover at his snooty private school - they helped each other through the appalling experience with a spot of innocent nooky behind the bike sheds - and the memory causes him a rush of blood to the head.

Seriously Major. There's no shame in having had gay sex at your private school. Many British private schools were hotbeds of homosexuality with "beautiful fags" lusted after by the prefects and bought and sold for "tuck." Blame your parents for placing you in an unsafe environment. Don't take it out on some nice gay couple wanting a relaxing weekend at a Brighton guesthouse.

http://tankthetories.com/wp-content/...trade-only.jpg

You funny little sausage! I am beginning to think that you have a problem. Just because I asked you to tone down your declarations of love for me, you are turning waspish.

But don't worry! In this socialist utopia you hanker for, you can 'come out' and be hailed as a 'proud gay'. You don't need to keep it pent up and get all frustrated because you don't like your self image. I am sure you will find someone suited to your deviant sexual predilections in time. Perhaps one of those big hairy market traders you like to have your coffee with.

I think in truth it is the Imam you are really frightened of, probably with cause.

Me? as Streetwalker so graphically states I have always preferred 'tits and beaver' rather than a 'smelly arsehole and a joint wank', so I am sorry but we have no future together!

Guys, I know we may all have strong feelings or entrenched feeling about this subject, but there is no need to collapse into the pettiness that is creeping into some posts and blatantly stated in others. Continually and personally attacking another member is not big in the way it is being perpetrated here, it is rather school playground.

I know we can all fall into the trap of allowing our posts to collapse into this, but we are all supposed to be adults and if we want someone to change their mind or view a subject differently, then reasoned argument should be used to convince them that their take is wrong, not simply stating they must be this that or the other as a result of their stance.

Being Homosexual is not;

• A Crime
• Immoral
• Deviant
• or makes someone a risk to others

But that does not mean a person should readily accept them into their homes, even if they do run a B&B.

I am not religious at all, my girlfriend is, but some of her friends have great difficulty with us having children when we are not married and they would not allow us to stay in their home overnight as it would be against what they believe. I personally think this is silly, but it is their beliefs and they hold them strongly so it is not for me to judge them on that as their beliefs do not actually do anyone any harm.

As a society we need to move away from everyone has more rights than the last person or minority. Everyone is equal, does not matter about their religion, race, skin tone, nationality or sexual orientation. We should all endeavour to treat people decently, but this is a two way street, and others, even minority groups, need to accept and respect other peoples beliefs and desires so long as they are not ones that actively promote hatred, violence or other criminal behaviour. We do not have to like those beliefs, but we should accept them.

Repeatedly personally attacking someone who disagrees with you in the way that is creeping into this thread is pathetic.

Can we please stop hurling accusations of being gay around, for a start it's hardly an insult (at least it shouldn't be) and it's detrimental to the quality of debate.
I have to say Balthazar has made me reconsider my position on this, although I have come to the same conclusion. I questioned myself quite a lot about would I have more of a problem a BnB owner refusing to take in a black person etc. and the answer is no, I think to refuse to provide a service to someone on the grounds of what they innately are is morally unjustified but that doesn't make it a social injustice (particularly when a business is run from a home - the one place freedom of speech doesn't need tempering), we should allow them to be as stupid as they wish and, as people have already pointed out, if enough people boycott the business they will have to reconsider thier position. This particular case was also not about the owner wanting a gay man in his house or not, but not wanting people to behave a certain way, isn't that acceptable - I would be asked to leave such an establishment if I decided to play Guns and Roses at full volume at 2am (not sure why I chose them).

I love how everyone is focusing on the conflict of rights - homosexuality and religion.
I don't give a damn about the religious argument, I believe a stronger argument is the simplest one - It is my damn house and who I allow into my house is my choice.

That is total crap. No one has done more than David Cameron to make the Conservative Party an inclusive one. Chris Grayling unfortunely lets out the clutch before he puts his brain in gear. Because someone makes a statement or a remark on a subject does that mean it is the policyb of the whole party. Statements are being made by people in all parties which are not necessarily that of the opinion of the party. In this case, the B&B owners must have known that they were setting themselves up for such a situation - or they are possibly totally stupid.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Being Homosexual is not;

• A Crime
• Immoral
• Deviant
• or makes someone a risk to others

I would take issue with the immoral bit, Jim. (I won't start on the deviant bit, we've done that to death!)
What defines immoral, in your view?
The law does not define morality, consider the state of the law prior to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, it's not that long back in the memory.
Is Balthazar a Muslim?
How do Muslims justify homosexuality when the Qur'an say in Sureh 7 80-81
And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

Originally Posted by DTE

But of course, sexually deviancy means peadophillia, beastiality or incest. Your definition to include homosexuality IS homophobic.

What utter twaddle. This is your definition of the word, defined to suit your position on this issue. Deviant is defined in the Oxford Concise Dictionary as 'differing from the normal especially with regard to sexual experience'. Since it is estimated that some six percent of the adult population consider themselves homosexual, I think it is perfectly reasonable to describe them as differing from the normal. I assume that since you also exclude necrophilia and sado-masochism from your own definitive list of deviant sexuality, that you also consider these practices normal? Therefore to describe my correct use of the word deviant as homophobic is not remotely justified.

Thats because they are. I'm just saying what every person not of faith thinks, its just usually we're too polite to say it.
I never used the word hate. I think not tolerating someone's relationship is pretty much the definition of intolerance. Its all there in the wording.

And I consider your description of people who have a faith or religion which you do not share as delusional, as intolerance. As you say it is all there in the wording.

So I ask again, adultery is a cardinal sin. Sex outside marriage is forbidden. So by your logic B&Bs must insist all heterosexual couples provide marriage certificates right? In fact why stop there, lets insist upon following all Christian doctrine when on the premises? I'm sure people will be queueing up to live like monks for a weekend

You do like to use dictatorial words like must. By my logic it is untenable that any body faced with compromising their beliefs or principles should be forced by law to do so in their own home, irrespective of whether it is also a B & B. They should have the freedom to turn away anyone under such circumstances. It should be their freedom of choice.

My views apply to a B & B which is also a home, not to hotels or accommodation which is not also a home.

Well that view runs contrary to the law, so coming from a potential future home secretary, it seems only to confirm that the Tories will say one thing in public to get elected, one thing in private, and then presumably that same thing again when elected. They haven't changed, they just have better P.R.

[/QUOTE]

Many views run contrary to the law. Just because a government has passed a law doesn't make the law right. What little objectivity you display flies out of the window when you describe a whole political party in terms initially expressed by one member, or to deny the right of a politician to question a law, if he so chooses.

I do not consider homosexuality immoral, bad, or wrong but I do consider it abnormal. Many Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews would consider it all four, as is their right.

Originally Posted by LA

I have two comments

1/ It is their house they should be able to do what they like -_-
2/ If a BnB in someones house turns away people due to sexual preference, race, colour etc then they will lose business.

Both entirely fair comments LA, particularly the latter.

My point was that some people seem too dismissive of comparisons between this and segregation. Discrimination based on sexual preference should be tolerated no more than discrimination based on ethnicity or anything else.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Both entirely fair comments LA, particularly the latter.

My point was that some people seem too dismissive of comparisons between this and segregation. Discrimination based on sexual preference should be tolerated no more than discrimination based on ethnicity or anything else.

In general that statement is true Jaques, however I think there are also some important differences too.

Being Black does not cause confusion for children, so having Black people in your home is unlikely to cause a problem, also being black does not actually cause any issues for any religion that I know of. There are Black Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc etc...There is no religious bar on being black...thankfully as there are enough other issues...

However being homosexual always has and always will be frowned upon. Men cannot understand Homosexual men and woman cannot understand homosexual woman. This is a simple fact and it certainly due to the genetic way we are wired up. Yes we should all be tolerant of Homosexuals and they usually have no more choice in the matter than Black or White people have a choice of skin tone (lets leave Michael Jackson out of this), but you see here comes another important difference between racial and homo discrimination..

Life style, most Black people live and work exactly as most white people do, their lives are similar to that of white people and this can be understood by children and the wider community, however many, not all, homosexuals give the impression of living on the fringe of society, many practice loose sexual morals and general live in a word closed to none homosexuals, as such this causes confusion for children..I accept some of this may be because their parents do not understand it, but this is natural as it is not "normal" for them.

I think that one thing that has been missed here is the following.

The couple who refused the Gays from their home should have been asked a few simple questions.

1. If you knew a couple were not married, would you refuse them a room?
2. If it was two homosexual woman would you make the same ruling?
3. If it was an unmarried mother, would you refuse them?
4. If they were Devil worshippers would you refuse them?
5. Would you allow a Black married couple in your home?

Now if they were truly judging these Guys purely on religious grounds then they would say YES to the above questions, then I would say they are daft bible bashers but they apply their rules fairly and equally and as such no action should be taken against them..

HOWEVER...

If they answered NO to any of those questions, then they are liars and bigoted idiots who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm finding this case to be a bit strange, illget my opinions out of the way first,
1) I think we need to be careful about treading peoples rights & beliefs underfoot, yes they are Christian and i find the decision poor business sense but it is their belief and their home.
2) The opinions of one man do not define a party, and he also is entitled to his opinion with no debate there is no democracy.

I was talking with friends of mine who are gay and they are finding this confusing, they are irritated by the couple, as they see them as idiots who are doing the cause of gay rights more harm than good, but also they know that it is not illegal to put up the barrier of "no single sex groups", as many establishments do as a preventantive measure against trouble. The general conclusion that we allcame to is that this is probably some poorly thought out electioneering, by which party God Knows, but it is ham handed enough to be either of the two mains.

Originally Posted by Scooby

I'm finding this case to be a bit strange, illget my opinions out of the way first,
1) I think we need to be careful about treading peoples rights & beliefs underfoot, yes they are Christian and i find the decision poor business sense but it is their belief and their home.
2) The opinions of one man do not define a party, and he also is entitled to his opinion with no debate there is no democracy.

I was talking with friends of mine who are gay and they are finding this confusing, they are irritated by the couple, as they see them as idiots who are doing the cause of gay rights more harm than good, but also they know that it is not illegal to put up the barrier of "no single sex groups", as many establishments do as a preventantive measure against trouble. The general conclusion that we allcame to is that this is probably some poorly thought out electioneering, by which party God Knows, but it is ham handed enough to be either of the two mains.

Chris Grayling walked into this sadly. He is not always renown for tact but is known as a loose cannon. Possible he was set up, and if this is so, he was stupid as he has been in the front line of Conservative politics to know better.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

What utter twaddle. This is your definition of the word, defined to suit your position on this issue. Deviant is defined in the Oxford Concise Dictionary as 'differing from the normal especially with regard to sexual experience'.

Aaah potato, potarto. See deviant "a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm". Notice the "or thing" distinction. If you want to argue that deviant has no more negative connotation than simply 'differing from the norm' then fine, but modern vernacular defines it differently.

After all, with your definition, homosexuals are catergorised the same as paedophiles and bestiality (spelt right this time, thanks Bazza). There is a moral disctintion there, whether or not it is written in the bloody Oxford english dictionary or not. You use that word because it suits YOUR beliefs. Thats why arguing over the language used is retarded, language IS an expression of opinion, I thought we all knew this but I guess not. If we're getting into semantics, the word "homophobia" is ill-defined too, really we need a word like "gayist" or something.

Since it is estimated that some six percent of the adult population consider themselves homosexual, I think it is perfectly reasonable to describe them as differing from the normal. I assume that since you also exclude necrophilia and sado-masochism from your own definitive list of deviant sexuality, that you also consider these practices normal?

Aah I hadn't thought of those. But well done you for going there. You obviously have more experience with that sort of thing, you're not a 'mason are you?

Therefore to describe my correct use of the word deviant as homophobic is not remotely justified.

I just justified it. Homophobia, while we are defining things (badly) is defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality" and antipathy I think adequately sums up your feelings on the subject.

And I consider your description of people who have a faith or religion which you do not share as delusional, as intolerance. As you say it is all there in the wording.

Delusional a "false belief or opinion". As an atheist, I believe their belief and opinion on the nature of the universe and creation is false. So I'm just as within my rights to use that word as a Godbotherer is to use the word "faith" as an answer to a question. xxxx xx its annoying when they do that. But anyway, I digress. Us atheists tolerate the church being everywhere and the underlying assumption by most poeple of faith that morals can 'only come from God', the least they can do is tolerate OUR opinion that they are full of xxxx

You do like to use dictatorial words like must. By my logic it is untenable that any body faced with compromising their beliefs or principles should be forced by law to do so in their own home, irrespective of whether it is also a B & B. They should have the freedom to turn away anyone under such circumstances. It should be their freedom of choice.

Its just the hypocrisy envolved. As I said before, adulterous behaviour could go on in the B&B without their knowledge, as could pre-marital sex. But those can be overlooked because its not as obvious and the owners would show some semblence of repecting privacy. Oh no, but not for the gays.

My views apply to a B & B which is also a home, not to hotels or accommodation which is not also a home.

Mine too. As does the whole bloody thread. But thanks for the distinction.

Many views run contrary to the law. Just because a government has passed a law doesn't make the law right. What little objectivity you display flies out of the window when you describe a whole political party in terms initially expressed by one member, or to deny the right of a politician to question a law, if he so chooses.

He will be the bloody Home Secretary! You don't think that HIS questioning of the law is slightly more relevant than some back-bencher with a grudge?! Gees the levels of 'delusion' in the Tory ranks goes further than I imagined.

I do not consider homosexuality immoral, bad, or wrong but I do consider it abnormal. Many Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews would consider it all four, as is their right.

And its the place of the law to tell these people that they are wrong.

Edited out inappropriate language 11/4/2010 - behave now! -Ops