Monday, April 05, 2010

Has Chris Grayling done a Howard Flight?

Remember the General Election of 2005? Remember that fateful week when a relatively obscure Conservative back-bencher by the name of Howard Flight was secretly recorded whilst addressing a meeting of Conservative Way Forward? He had the audacity to suggest that a Conservative government would make further spending cuts which would permit the overall burden of taxation to fall.

There was no national uproar demanding Mr Flight’s head; just a few Labour-supporting rags stirring up allegations of hypocrisy with cries of ‘same old Tories’ and the boringly-predictable ‘nasty party’ mantra.

But he was, nonetheless, summarily dismissed by Michael Howard, who justified his actions with: “What I can't have is someone misrepresenting my view, misrepresenting what we do in government and suggesting that we say one thing in private and another thing in public."

God forbid that Michael Howard would ever misrepresent anyone’s view.

Howard Flight was, of course, misrepresented by the media and appallingly dealt with by the party. He was dismissed essentially for articulating conservative philosophy instead of Conservative policy, and it was a gross injustice meted out upon him by an autocratic, hysterical megalomaniac.

Here we are now in 2010, and Chris Grayling, a rather more prominent front-bencher, has been secretly recorded whilst addressing a meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies. He has had the temerity to express a sympathetic understanding of the Christian conscience: he is of the opinion that Christians who offer Bed & Breakfast services in their own homes should ‘have the right’ to turn away homosexual couples if they so desire.

There is uproar not only from Labour ministers (like Chris Bryant and Ben Bradshaw) and the Labour-supporting media but also from gay-rights organisations who are aghast that David Cameron’s Conservative-brand decontamination appears to have been little more than skin deep: the ‘nasty party’ still has ‘bigots’. And so the enlightened, progressive and ever-so-slightly gay ones are baying for blood: they want the head of Chris Grayling served on a silver platter, or they’ll scream and scream and scream.

Nothing of intolerance or 'bigotry' in that, of course.

What Mr Grayling actually said was: "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 a 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."

He drew a distinction, however, with hotels, which he says should admit gay couples. "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."

And he has drawn attention to the fact that, notwithstanding his personal beliefs, he voted in favour of Labours Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 which outlawed discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

The facts, however, become irrelevant to the politics of perception.

David Cameron has bent over backwards to win over gay and lesbian voters by stressing his new-look party's liberal credentials. He has recanted of his former anti-gay voting, repented of Section 28 which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools, and he voted in favour of civil partnerships.

Now, however, there is more than a whiff of inconsistency that he tolerates front-bench ‘bigots’ who are not quite as committed to the Cameron reforms as they might appear.

This perhaps would not matter so much if there were not an inconvenient ‘candidate issue’ in Northern Ireland.

Adrian Watson was the Ulster Unionist candidate for South Antrim.

Since the UUP and Conservatives are now in alliance in the Province, his candidature had to be affirmed by both parties.

The UUP affirmed him with a colossal 90 per cent of the vote: they love their mayor.

But the Conservative selection panel torpedoed Mr Watson’s candidacy when it emerged that he had made ‘anti-gay’ comments in 2006.

He and his wife are committed Christians and offer Bed & Breakfast services in their own home. He says his wife has ‘strong family and Christian values’. With young children, he said he would feel ‘uncomfortable’ with the arrangements: “It was just so awkward, trying to explain to young children what being gay is.”

And Mr Watson has gone out of his way to reassure people that he is not remotely ‘homophobic’, that he has gay friends and that he has no problem at all with equality legislation.

But perception is all.

And God help any candidate who strays off piste, even years before a general election campaign, and years before any change in party policy might be known or even foreseen. It is the task of the media and political élite to misrepresent, distort, demonise and pursue vendettas if it serves their own higher purposes.

And, although undoubtedly a highly-regarded Antrim mayor and respected member of the UUP, Mr Watson is just a pawn in Unionist/Conservative power play.

But even a pawn can put a king in check.

And Mr Watson now wishes to know, quite reasonably, why his personal beliefs cost him his candidature and, potentially, his whole political career, while Chris Grayling is not only still contesting Epsom and Ewell at the forthcoming General Election; he remains the Conservative Party’s front-bench spokesman for Home Affairs.

Mr Watson is particularly irked (‘furious’, actually) because Mr Grayling went ‘much further’ in his comments than Mr Watson did back in 2006. He concludes: “What I have witnessed over the last six weeks is a vendetta waged against me for a statement I made three years ago.”

He is not, of course, the first.

But that knowledge does not lessen the pain, humiliation and trauma of being persecuted for one's beliefs.

The wonder is that the Conservative Party believes it can rig candidate selection in Northern Ireland like it does in the Home Counties: a politically-correct, female/black/Asian/gay/lesbian appointment will not be tolerated by the loyal Christians of Antrim: they want their socially-conservative mayor, not least because he understands the local culture and religious politics which are a world away from the liberal androgyny of Cameroon metrosexual metropolitanism. If you want to win in Northern Ireland, you don't alienate the churches.

It remains to be seen if David Cameron acts as hysterically as Michael Howard did back in 2005.

If he does, and if he dismisses Chris Grayling simply for articulating Conservative philosophy on an issue of conscience, then the autocracy at the heart of the party may be seen not to have changed at all.

And that is of far greater significance than the flotsam and jetsam of whether or not you wish to share your cornflakes with a couple of gays.


OpenID britologywatch said...

In any case, all this storm in a bed and breakfast tea cup involves a crass misnomer. By turning away a gay couple, a B&B owner is not necessarily discriminating against the couple on grounds of sexuality but excluding them on grounds of morality: the owner doesn't want activities (s)he regards as immoral taking place on his / her premises.

This would be analogous to excluding an adulterous couple from one's B&B, which could hardly be characterised as excluding them on the grounds they were straight.

In these circumstances, a Christian (or, indeed, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu) B&B owner is left with two choices, it seems to me: refuse to accommodate the couple, or allow them to stay on condition that they do not have sex. As the latter option would hardly be viewed as acceptable, under normal circumstances, only the former option is practicable.

The only other way round it would be to market your B&B as a Christian B&B, in which Christian standards of behaviour are expected - in which case, you might insist that non-married (including gay) couples take out separate rooms. But what would the progressives think of that? And would the legislation require that B&B owners make only double rooms available to gay couples: would it be regarded as discrimination to offer only single rooms to gay couples?

Might be worth testing it.

5 April 2010 at 10:35  
Blogger Soho Politico said...

On Grayling: the best you can say of him is that his position is utterly incoherent. He has pointed out that, notwithstanding his own views on religious conscience, he voted for the current law on non-discrimination. In what sense, then, does he think that the B&B owners have the right to choose their guests? Does his statement imply that he thinks the state ought to simply look the other way as the law is flouted? Or that he believes the law he voted for (perhaps under sufferance) is wrong and should ideally be repealed.

Even if he personally voted for non-discrimination, that does not mean that those who believe the law is right will be reassured: his comments presumably reveal something about where his sympathies would lie if the issue had to be revisited in the future. (At least, that is, if they are his current views. Incredibly, he tried to extricate himself by claiming that his comments only amounted to describing his past, not present views. That is not believable, since his comments begin 'I think', not 'I once thought'.)

Meanwhile, on the point of principle, I would be interested to hear your views on this question: Should a Christian couple running a B&B should have the right to refuse to put up a mixed race couple, on conscientious grounds, and perhaps have a sign outside saying that such couples will not be admitted. In living memory, of course, many Christians opposed repeal of bans on mixed race marriage on Biblical grounds, and I dare say some still quietly believe such marriages to be wrong. Moreover, some people have said, in the context of the Grayling row, that there is a distinction to be drawn between discrimination on grounds of innate characteristics (e.g. race), and on grounds of (religiously proscribed) conduct (e.g. homosexual sex), and that the former should not be allowed, whilst the latter should. If this is right, discrimination against a mixed race couple would be discrimination on grounds of conduct, and so ought to be allowed. Yet, to the vast majority, this would be a grotesque position. So, for those who defend the right of the religious couple to discriminate against gays, the question must be whether they also support their right to discriminate against mixed race spouses. If yes, their position is extreme indeed; if no, their position seems inconsistent, and they will have to explain (which I doubt they could) where the difference between the cases is seen to lie. So I wonder where your answer lies?

5 April 2010 at 10:37  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

"I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.... & etc"

How strange this utterance of Mr Grayling did not take place in support of the many cases of Christian conscience which have been in various courts over the past year or so!
How odd that Grayling's own "conscience" conveniently operates at this point in the electoral calendar - why not before?

What's this Damascene conversion?

Also. Note how tender his conscience is, in making the fine distinction between a B & B owner and a hotel owner.
A pity that this touching Conservative "conscience" failed to operate throughout the years of expenses claims!
Sheer hypocrisy and a disgraceful sham. I cannot believe a single word they utter.

5 April 2010 at 10:40  
Anonymous len said...

This brings us to the point of do you follow your Christian conscience or do you follow;
(What is the law that says Christians must let gay couples stay in their B and B`s? )

There is a whole minefield in the imposed morality system of man (Human Rights Bill)which is applied with enthusiasm but no one seems to understand.

5 April 2010 at 11:07  
Blogger Preacher said...

Surely this must be a question of morality not discrimination. If a person, say for example a prostitute booked a B&B for two weeks, then insisted on the freedom to bring her clients back, even though the owners of the establishment did not have the same moral standpoint, then the owners/proprietors of said guest house (which is also their home) must have the right of refusing conduct that they find morally wrong.

5 April 2010 at 11:14  
Anonymous Chris Watts said...

Micheal Howard might have seen like a hysterical megalomaniac but he kept the party in order.

This isn't the first time that David Cameron hasn't done anything when a MP or MEP has been caught saying something that was conservative philosophy and not current policy.

The problem comes when your actually trying to convince the voter to vote for them. It's hard trying to get a policy across like support for the NHS, gay rights and enviromental issues when you've got MP's and MEP's left right and centre contradicting policy and instead supporting old philosophies!

5 April 2010 at 11:25  
Blogger Ronald said...

At a very crude level I would find it disturbing to have two gay men having sex in my home.

Whatever the morals or ethics or legal position I suspect that most straight people, which is still most of us, would feel the same.

Muslims can call for gays to be murdered with little response from the government

5 April 2010 at 11:35  
Anonymous Peter R said...

So are we suggesting we now hang a sign from the door saying "No gays". I'm pretty sure there would outrage if you put one up saying "No Blacks" or "No Christians". When you turn your home into a business it is no longer 'just a home' you have to adhere to health and safey legislation, fire and of course equal rights.

5 April 2010 at 11:55  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Peter R, you seem to be suggesting that a person running a business loses all rights and has to be bludgeoned into submission by the person insisting on "rights".

What those of us who support the B&B couple are saying is that a person's home does not have to become a shrine to political correctness just because some people wish to force their activities onto others as part of gesture politics.

Would you support me if I insisted on eating a pork pie at a Barmitzvah?

5 April 2010 at 12:15  
Blogger Anglichan said...

Peter R aligns the idea that discriminating against homosexual practice is the same as discriminating against a person because of their ethnic origin.

This view might be reflected in the law of the land but it's not a viewpoint that is taught in Scripture. The practice of sodomy is a sin, and a sinful choice, and no true Christian would want such behaviour happening in their home.

In this, the Christian B&B is essentially different from another business- selling food, for example- in that the sinful sexual act doesn't take place whilst providing the service.

For anyone interested in this topic, might I recommend 'the Pink Swastika' by Lively and Abrams, in which is chronicled the link between homosexuality and the rise of the Nazis in pre-war Germany.

In that book is a warning to any country that sees the tolerance of that vice as a mark of a civilised society. It's not: it's an indication of its imminent destruction.

5 April 2010 at 12:30  
Blogger Palgolak said...

I see a gap in the market here: chastity belts for use in Christian B&Bs. Gays and other sinners could be locked into them when they check in and unlocked when they check out.

That way you can welcome the sinner but not the sin.

5 April 2010 at 12:54  
OpenID splinteredsunrise said...

I sort of feel sorry for Adrian Watson, whose opinions would not be exceptional in Antrim, although they may be in Notting Hill.

Perhaps we should formalise the process and give Mr Ben Summerskill a veto on all candidacies, so Parliament can be guaranteed to be sufficiently pro-homosexualist.

5 April 2010 at 13:13  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The striking thing to me is that you cannot personally object to any behaviour which only the state deems allowable . You cannot defend your own concience , which sounds 1984 in some ways .

The comment about a sign hanging outside an imaginary B&B saying "no christians" is an interesting view , so should we therefore accept that certain sexual practices/prefernces are acceptable ?? I am still against the early teaching of sex in schools and can find little else in the idea but social engineering and re ordering .

The state handling persoanl objections on my behalf of my mind, may feel like a time saving mechanism for some but I find it rather creepy , I mean where do "I" begin and the state end .

We perhaps cannot go back to the shunning of gay behaviour , but I fail to see why we should be promoting it when only somthing like 10% of the population is gay , I mean isnt there an inequality issue namely that 90% of the population dont practise homosexuality.

As there is such a thing as the gay economy , why cant there be the non gay economy .Perhaps it is an acceptance point , but if so refusal must work the other way .No straight people allowed ?

5 April 2010 at 13:17  
Anonymous T Howe said...

I think there are many on here who need to reflect on there non Christian and quite frankly misguided views. As a heterosexual Christian I strongly believe that hatred has no part in Christianity regardless of faith, sexual orientation or gender. For anyone to think its ok to persecuted a person for any reason is more aliened to a Nazi than suggesting the gay community was the cause of suggest an organisation. The extreme view of some Christians is concerning and the cause of the church split, not a gay person wanting to hold hands!

5 April 2010 at 13:23  
Anonymous S Roberts said...

Those of us living East of Suez cannot understand what on earth is happening in England.

Perhaps once upon a time we had a certain moral authority?

Now it seems we are pandering to a minority and renouncing all we have ever been taught to be correct. My heart weeps.

5 April 2010 at 13:41  
Anonymous no nonny said...

"It is the task of the media and political élite to misrepresent, distort, demonise and pursue vendettas if it serves their own higher purposes. "...or, to adopt their commie parlance, "what they perceive to be" higher purposes.

I seem to recall that Milton's Satan (Paradise Lost) depicts the principle "the higher you place yourself, the lower you fall." The descent is headlong.

Thanks, Your Grace, for showing the illogic, inconsistencies, and downright malevolence that lie beyond the PC wall of self-righteousness. There, wrong replaces right(s), and injustice imposes itself on justice. Anti-Christ transmutes life's leaden metal to living hell.

5 April 2010 at 14:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Suely this most important issue is that of being accused of having double standards and hoodwinking the electorate.
This is a real dilemma for Cameron and Co and he must confirm or deny that his claim that the CP is fully touchy feely and is not going to repeal the equality laws. As His Grace has highlighted, the Watson ruling leaves a gaping disparity in what the Party Line is and whether or not candidates are entitled to express personal commentary. How Cameron reacts will this little time-bomb will be closely followed and exploited ruthlessly should he fail to make the right decision.

5 April 2010 at 14:21  
Blogger Preacher said...

The problem is that the rights of a minority are being legally elevated above the view of the majority who find these practices offensive, whatever the religous or non religous views held. If you want to practice an 'alternative' lifestyle & are prepared to accept the social & medical problems that this entails, then that is your choice. But any government or would be government that insists that it is you right to enforce your way of life through the portals of other peoples lives, causing grief & disruption is heading down the slippery slope of anarchy & that will destroy both morality & society, lock stock & barrel.

5 April 2010 at 14:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Daniel Hannan, beloved of His Grace, takes a curious view of the affair:

❛It’s a similar story with the fabricated row about Chris Grayling’s belief that religious B&B owners should not be forced by law to let rooms to gay couples. Such hoteliers are guilty of bad business as well as bad manners: they are harming their profits for no good reason.❜

Is this the authentic voice of Conservatism? Is profit all? As for manners, I would have thought it bad manners for a homosexual couple even to ask a Christian B&B for accommodation, knowing that the request would create a dilemma for the owners.

5 April 2010 at 14:39  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Within ordinary people, yes there exists a propensity towards fear of people or ideas that are different to their own. This is normal and natural, but should never be overstated. Human beings are many things, adaptable is certainly one of them, as well as highly self-interested.

Where racism takes on a whole new and very dangerous pathway is when it becomes enshrined in state law. As was the case in The American deep south.

For it was not small or even medium sized independent business men that upheld the states racist laws. Quite the opposite.

I still have the legal right to not sell my goods or services to any one I do not wish to. All I would need to do if I did not want to sell to a black person or homosexual would be to lie about the reason for not doing so. This would be very easy to do, and completely get away with.

However why indeed would I personally wish to do so? It is hard enough to find buyers at all these days, never mind mindlessly discriminating against a significant proportion of my potential customers.

In the vast majority of cases independent business would have to be suicidally insane to discriminate against any customer or employee simply on the grounds of race, sex, age, or sexual preference. Which is why in the vast amount of cases they don't, and never have done.

The state however has an interest in playing race cards. Our current one has played so many over the 13 years they are now down to their last 2 of Diamonds and seem to not understand why they have still not won a trick yet.

The reason for this is simple. A divided society is one which is far easier to bully into virtually anything at the drop of a hat, and therefore control.

Fascism is not only a very nasty thing, it can and often does come from the most unexpected of places. Fascism is of course a product of socialism not conservatism in any manner shape of form. However these terms along with left and right have now been so fundamentally corrupted by all concerned that they are now effectively worse then meaningless nonsense.

Once a nations written or otherwise constitution is thrown carelessly into the abyss as the German one was soon after the election of the Nazi Party, all bets are off.

Chaos will and does inevitably engulf us all. At which point the forces of reaction are set free to do their worse. The results of which are well known and documented.

BTW if you think we currently have chaos, then 'you ant seen nothing yet'

As Nick Griffin correctly observes. If the state can sanction wholly discriminatory Black Police Associations, why should he not also advocate White ones, or anything else exclusively white, male, or ethnic British in nature?

He can now advocate, within a state that he was running, any overtly racist or indeed racist, sexist or homophobic authority or organisation he so wishes without even having to change our constitutional laws, in any manner whatsoever. This logic will not be lost on his more simple minded supporters, and quite frankly who could really blame them?

Liberty is only retained by a nations constitution acting along side the collective will of the people. A constitution that protects without grace of favour basic and fundamental property rights.

Without which we are not a nation of free peoples, but simply corporate state owned slaves. Set up for the exploitation of multi-national conglomerates who although run and owned exclusively by extremely white people would gladly slaughter us all if it helped them balance their books or protect them from the attention of the public as a united whole.

5 April 2010 at 15:03  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

More on topic

Cameron would have to be either mad or very bad to rise to this poisonous bait.

The questions are.

Is Cameron about to do so. If he does is this because he is mad or very bad?

We shall see.

Although what he does in opposition is one thing. What he actually does in power is quite another.

The very worrying thing is that a British Prime minister is now and has always been in the past an elected dictator. Although the Conservative Party's membership evidently has a small degree more influence over its leader then the Labour Party's membership every have had over theirs. this influence is vastly overestimated and over-stated.

The truth is that the people of this nation have as little control over the way things are run, that it is possible for the establishment to conspire to achieve. There is a whole lot more evidence around that 100% proves this to be the case, other then a few episodes of Yes Prime Minister.

There exists whole, and much higher levels of unelected establishment run organizations daily dictating to our more elected dictators. This is in no way a new situation it has indeed been the case since British democracy was first invented.

This country has long since been a Internationalist CORPORATION mainly concerned with the business of mining, arms manufacture, and banking.

If you have ever felt free in the past, it is only because the corporation wished at the time for you to feel that way.

If for any particular reason they wished or decided together to make you feel like a slave, you not only will feel like one, you will be one.

The ONLY ultimate question is.

Have they actually decided to do this, if so how long will it take.

5 April 2010 at 15:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I don't see why Chris Grayling should have to resign over this. Surely he can have an opinion and the law should be clarified regarding small hostelries.

I would say if a B&B or Guest House is under a certain amount of rooms and the owner or manager lives on the premises as his or her own home then the proprietor has the right to define who can or cannot stay in is/her establishment whether it was Christian or not.
If it has over a certain amount of rooms and is classed as an hotel then that would be different.

There are plenty of B&Bs that are gay friendly so why don't they just trot along and find one of those instead of making a fuss. One would think they are trying to get some compensation?

5 April 2010 at 15:41  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

This man has obviously committed a thought crime and must be punished.

How dare he have his own opinion! If he is not a cardboard cut-out of David Cameron then he should not be a Conservative MP. After all, who knows more about what Conservatives want than Cast-Iron Cameron?

Anyway, point made. I personally think that if someone refuses a particular service on Christian moral grounds, then he should be free to do so (as long as he is not bound as an employee to provide said service). I would not refuse to house a homosexual couple in a B&B as long as they accepted single beds (and no funny business). There is a difference between refusing to provide a service because the person is immoral (turning homosexuals away for being homosexual) and refusing to allow immoral acts as part of that service (allowing them to share a bed). One should surely be allowed to ban certain behaviours that one finds objectionable, without banning people outright. Do the new provisions affect escorts and prostitutes for example?

5 April 2010 at 16:37  
Anonymous Philip said...

What happens to Mr Grayling's political career will show whether Mr Cameron supports freedom of religion and conscience, or the extreme elements of the homosexual lobby. Vetoing Mr Watson's NI UUP candidacy is a disgrace and must demonstrate Cameroon contempt for the wishes of local NI people and views of traditionalist core conservatives.

5 April 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

If you live in a sewer, then it would be unwise to start up a business and not do business with rats. My advice is to get out of the sewer if the smell of shit is upsetting you. If you can't get out of the sewer then find something that minimises contact with the overwhelming quantity of scum. Sound advice or what?

You could try to clean up the sewer of course, but that will not be easy, and you will not be liked by the rats.

5 April 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous Truthseeker said...

Anyone watch the BBC documentary of the persucution of Christians in Britain, yesturday? Worth a watch

5 April 2010 at 18:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said... long as they accepted single beds (and no fanny business)...

Mr Lakestar old chap, Isn't this all a bit Basil Fawlty - how would you define or police this particular house rule?

my typo intended.

5 April 2010 at 18:58  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

What a load of old tosh, or toss, depending on your preference.

Iain Dale the apparently, ever-so-slightly, not as you would notice homosexual blogger blew a fuse over this - the bloody gays are a right pain in the arse, always banging on about being homosexuals.

It really sticks in my throat. I wish they'd get over themselves, and not concentrate on pushing their minority, pervy view on the rest of us.

B & B? The owner's house, the owner's rules.

No, I don't vote Tory, not with Cameron in charge.

5 April 2010 at 19:29  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Surely there is no obligation for any party member or MP to agree with everything in the party manifesto, with every detail of party policy or with everything the leader says.
I believe that anyone should be free to express his personal thoughts and indeed free to try to change the party to his point of view. After all this is what quite a number of anti-European Tory MPs are doing, are they also to be dismissed from the party?
But apparently, the gay rights movement, and their friends, only believe of freedom of expression if you express their views. But of course this leads only to dictatorship.

5 April 2010 at 23:01  
Anonymous ヤフカテ said...

Heroes in different era.

6 April 2010 at 02:02  
Anonymous len said...

The true figures of homosexuals in the UK.

Makes interesting reading.

6 April 2010 at 08:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Rottenborough said at 14.39

"As for manners, I would have thought it bad manners for a homosexual couple even to ask a Christian B&B for accommodation, knowing that the request would create a dilemma for the owners."

But the couple concerned didn't know it was a "Christian B&B" - perhaps they would not have booked if they had known.

Marie1797 said at 15.41

"There are plenty of B&Bs that are gay friendly so why don't they just trot along and find one of those instead of making a fuss. One would think they are trying to get some compensation?"

Yes, there are lots of gay run and gay friendly B&Bs but probably not in that area and they would, no doubt, have booked into one of them if one was available in the area. The simple fact of the matter is that two elderly gentleman had booked accommodation and then were turned away at 11.30 at night. They had no need to "inform" the B&B owners that they are a gay couple because, as far as they were concerned the law says B&B owners cannot discriminate.

As it happens I think the law is wrong and I agree with Mr Grayling. But why oh why didn't he vote against the proposals or at least abstain?

For the record, my partner and I wouldn't dream of staying in small family run B&Bs because the rooms tend to be in the family house and I find all that sort of thing extremely embarrassing!

6 April 2010 at 12:50  
Anonymous Eleanor said...

Anonymous is right - the b&b's website claimed 'a warm and friendly welcome awaits all guests' - how were the couple to know this excluded them. If the B&B's owners had put a small note on their website that they were Christians and upheld Christian values in their home, chances are the gay couple would not have booked there. These people are not looking to be humiliated, despite what Marie1797 seems to think.

While on the topic of homosexuality, Mr. Grayling made a general statement displaying sympathy to all homeowners. Mr. Watson specifically targeted homosexuals and was himself hypocritical by stating that while he was not homophobic and had many gay friends, he could not credit his children with having the intelligence to understand that in some cases, men are in love with other men and women are in love with other women.

To those people who are claiming to know that the majority of non-gays find 'gay practices' offensive or immoral, I recommend you refrain from making such generalisations.

Ronald - really not sure what you're trying to say with your sweeping statement about Muslims.

Anglichan - words fail me... it's been a while since I heard such a ridiculous yet hateful opinion. Possibly since before the BNP were forced to change their policies.

Not a machine - what do you mean by 'promoting gay behaviour'? As a straight individual, I'm not really aware of any pressure from the gay community to attend drag shows or dance to YMCA (sorry for the stereotypes!). If you're referring to sex, I would hardly call this uniquely gay behaviour. If you're referring specifically to gay sex, I'm not sure how it's being 'promoted' to the non-gay community...

10 May 2010 at 10:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older