http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20000954
Ignoring the anti-Christian-bashing stuff, is it not a reasonable point that anyone has the right to say who they do and do not want to allow into their homes?
There is no point to Nick Griffin he is in fact pointless.
I think the problem is that it's wasn't just their home but their business too.
The bit I find confusing is that the owner didn't allow unmarried heterosexual couples to use the double room either, so how is it deemed to be discrimination if she treats both parties the same?
It was a business and not a home. Everyone can choose who they let into their home, but they cannot base who they do business with based on bigotry. IMHO.
there is a certain small amount of logic there, however posting their address up and inviting a lynch mob round seems to be a very poor way of presenting any form of rational argument.
I'd be suprised if she's let only married couples stay in the double room though.
BNP leader Nick Griffin has said people have the "right to discriminate",
Clearly not. The guys a ****
a big fat NO - a B&B is business and whilst it may be inside some ones house it doesnt give the owner the right to discriminate baised on religious or personal views.
is it not a reasonable point that anyone has the right to say who they do and do not want to allow into their homes?
Except it's a B&B, not just their home is it? They're running a business. Would you be saying the same thing if she'd turned away a black couple?
[i]however posting their address up and inviting a lynch mob round seems to be a very poor way of presenting any form of rational argument. [/i]
Agreed, I'm not saying the guys not an odious little turd.
[i]Nick Griffin has said people have the "right to discriminate"[/i]
If you use an alternative word for 'discriminate', say, 'choose', is he still wrong?
Call it what you like, Nick Griffin is wrong.
[i]Except it's a B&B, not just their home is it? They're running a business. Would you be saying the same thing if she'd turned away a black couple? [/i]
Equally, it's their home, not just a B&B. I'm not saying I agree with what they did, I don't; Homophobia and racism are Bad Things.
I am however wondering whether they should be prosecuted for doing it.
Would nick Griffin be happy if medical staff refused him vital emergency medical treatment on the grounds that they were descriminating against him because he's a ****?
He is wrong. He's suggesting that we can't choose who we can and can't let into our homes. We can, and for whatever stupid reason we want.
Equally, it's their home, not just a B&B.
That's un****inglucky. they have opened their house as a business to the public.
people have the "right to discriminate"
Not exactly hard to see what Griffin's angle might be in promoting that viewpoint.
As Mr Black and Morgan pointed out on the radio last night, apart from the obvious equality issues, how exactly would it work if businesses [i]were[/i] allowed to discriminate like this?
Would you be happy listing everything about you that someone could possibly object to just so you can book a B&B room?
Or should they just put up signs?
[img] http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834522bcd69e20120a79f8e49970b-800wi [/img]
I like Nick Griffin.
If it wasn't for him, someone competent might be in charge of the BNP, and then we'd be in real trouble.
A home or business owner has the right to refuse entry to anyone he chooses without reason, but can not discriminate with prejudice.
[i]He's suggesting that we can't choose who we can and can't let into our homes. We can, and for whatever stupid reason we want[/i]
Well, the court case in question suggests that we can't.
See, now, I'd definitely do that if I were allowed... Please, let me, please...Would nick Griffin be happy if medical staff refused him vital emergency medical treatment on the grounds that they were descriminating against him because he's a ****?
Equally, it's their home, not just a B&B. I'm not saying I agree with what they did, I don't; Homophobia and racism are Bad Things.I am however wondering whether they should be prosecuted for doing it.
But they made the choice to run their home as a B&B. Equally you cannot opt out of fire or food hygiene regulations, just because you happen to run your business from your home. By running a business you implicitly agree to do things a certain way.
it's a business, they can't discriminate.
[i]A home or business owner has the right to refuse entry to anyone he chooses without reason, but can not discriminate with prejudice.[/i]
But who discriminates about anything in a non-prejudicial way?
Say, for instance, someone turns up to the B&B steaming drunk. The landlady refuses entry because her landlady friends have had trouble with (other) drunken guests before, and she wants none of it. No-one would think this unreasonable, but she's still come to a judgement about somene she's never met based on situations she's never faced. That's prejudice, no?
So when that pub bouncer doesn't let you into the bar because he doesn't like the look of you (i.e. not black/gay/female etc. etc. but for a random reason because, say, you are wearing trainers) is everyone saying they can't actually do that?
[i]But they made the choice to run their home as a B&B. Equally you cannot opt out of fire or food hygiene regulations, just because you happen to run your business from your home. By running a business you implicitly agree to do things a certain way. [/i]
Fair point
[i]support an idiot like Griffin and don't be surprised by the response you get. Bloody moron.[/i]
Is that aimed at me? I suggest you read what I've said; I'm not supporting him, I'm asking a question.
You have a choice about being drunk, you don't have a choice about being gay.
But being drunk isn't the same as being black or gay is it. You refusing someone because of their behaviour in that case, not because of what they are.
That's prejudice, no?
No, it's making a judgment about safety I'd imagine. She'd have an obligation to ensure the safety of her other guests.
So when that pub bouncer doesn't let you into the bar because he doesn't like the look of you (i.e. not black/gay/female etc. etc. but for a random reason because, say, you are wearing trainers) is everyone saying they can't actually do that?
very tricky ground this sort of thing. Bouncers refuse entry to groups of young lads for example, citing 'safety' reasons. Perfectly legal. They can make up all sorts of reasons to refuse entry, and not even have to give a reason. As agents for a private event/company/premises, they have the power to admit who they want. If they stated that a person could not come in because of their skin colour/gender/sexuality etc, that would be illegal. hence the infamous 'sorry no trainers' line.
IHN - Member
"He's suggesting that we can't choose who we can and can't let into our homes. We can, and for whatever stupid reason we want"Well, the court case in question suggests that we can't.
It doesn't matter that it is their home when they are running it as a business. Got it that time?
Nick Griffin is ace. We should all vote for him. Voting for the BNP reduces racist violence and extremism. No, really:
[url= http://pubphilosopher.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/as-the-bnp-declines-political-and-communal-violence-will-increase/ ]Vote BNP for less racist violence and extremism[/url]
what I'm saying is, they could have just said "no, you're not coming in, I don't want your business" and left it at that. By giving a reason they showed what their prejudice was and there are certain things on the basis of which you can't discriminate.
Being drunk is not one of them.
You refusing someone because of their behaviour in that case, not because of what they are.
Okay, change drunk to trainer wearing and perfectly sober. Can't see any H&S issues in that.
cannot agree more.The only thing nick griffin has the right to do, is f..k off.
as was said above they were running a business.it's discrimination pure and simple.
If I ran a small manufacturing business from home, and refused to let gay people buy stuff from me, would that be OK IHN?
I can't actually believe that this has been posted on here, are you living in the 70's?
[i]But being drunk isn't the same as being black or gay is it. You refusing someone because of their behaviour in that case, not because of what they are. [/i]
Well, you're refusing someone on how you [i]think[/i] their behaviour will be. He could very well just wobble up stairs to bed and appear at breakfast polite, apologetic and hungover.
[i]It doesn't matter that it is their home when they are running it as a business. Got it that time? [/i]
I have thanks, after jon1973 well put point.
Personally i thing guest houses should be allowed to choose who they allow to stay providing they advertise their prejudices and make people aware when they are booking.
This would prevent people paying good money to guest houses and then being made to feel unwelcome.
It would also mean that the bigotted idiots would lose a lot of business.
Okay, change drunk to trainer wearing and perfectly sober. Can't see any H&S issues in that.
The venue would be perfectly ok to impose a dress code, as it's a private event/company/premises.
That the 'dress code' is instantly adaptable to suit the bouncers' attitude towards any given individual is anothert matter entitrely.
In my going out days, clubs that said 'no trainers' were generally crap anyway, and not worth trying to get in.
[i]If I ran a small manufacturing business from home, and refused to let gay people buy stuff from me, would that be OK IHN?[/i]
No, it would mean you were a bigoted, small finded, fool. I'm not sure if you should be prosecuted for it though.
brakes - Member
what I'm saying is, they could have just said "no, you're not coming in, I don't want your business" and left it at that. By giving a reason they showed what their prejudice was and there are certain things on the basis of which you can't discriminate.
+1 brakes
Their mistake was giving a reason, you can refuse service to anyone you like, for any reason or no reason whatsoever. As soon as you say it because you're [whatever "group" they belong to] it becomes discriminatory
I better clarify the post above, before it gets misinterpreted. I am not saying discrimination is right. I believe bigotry and discrimination in all forms to be utterly wrong.
Their mistake was giving a reason, you can refuse service to anyone you like, for any reason or no reason whatsoever. As soon as you say it because you're [whatever "group" they belong to] it becomes discriminatory
Which is a bit ridiculous though isn't it? At least there's an honesty in saying "I don't want your business because...".
it's a business, they can't discriminate.
Actually - any business and anybody can discriminate...... Nobody [i]has[/i] to accept the business of (or the friendship of, or even the company of) anyone or everyone. I big part of some peoples business process is deciding who they don't want to sell their goods or services to. The B&B owners mistake was to say [u]why[/u] she didn't want to give the couple a room - she could have said 'Sorry, we're full up.' and that could have been a big fat obvious lie, and that would be fine. Or she could have said - we don't have any double rooms available (the existence of an empty room doesn't make it available if you don't want to offer it) - offered them a twin or two singles, got the result she wanted and some money in the til too if the couple didn't decide to take their business elsewhere.
Her problem isn't that shes a christian, homophibia isn't an exclusively christian (or typically christian) trait. She's just a tactless idiot.
EDIT - typed that too slow
That the 'dress code' is instantly adaptable to suit the bouncers' attitude towards any given individual is anothert matter entitrely.
I find dress codes get very onerous when you mistake the bouncer's 'speak to the hand' gesture for an invitation to high five 🙂
Actually - any business and anybody can discriminate...... Nobody has to accept the business of (or the friendship of, or even the company of) anyone or everyone
Doesn't this depend on your reason (if stated)? I thought that equality laws enforced this.
You can refuse business based on risk, but I didn't think you could because someone's brown or gay or female or whatever.
Actually - any business and anybody can discriminate...... Nobody has to accept the business of (or the friendship of, or even the company of) anyone or everyone
not true - from the Home Office website:
Equality Act 2010 for lesbian, gay and bisexual people
It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation when providing goods, facilities or services, in education, when selling or letting premises or when exercising public functions.
whether the discriminators (sp?) "say" or not, it's illegal to discriminate for the reasona above.
Doesn't this depend on your reason (if stated)?
Thats what I said - her mistake was to state her reason. She should have been polite enough to not state her reason. She didn't have to state any reason. She didn't have to have a reason.
You are free to believe anything you like, but you're not free to act any way you like, but you are free to make un-reasoned decisions
Ah, apologies. Must pay attention at the back. 😀
Equality Act 2010 for lesbian, gay and bisexual people
It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation when providing goods, facilities or services, in education, when selling or letting premises or when exercising public functions.
I got something wrong there it seems.
Is prejudice based on sex covered elsewhere then?
The fact she stated the reason just meant it was *easier* to prosecute.
If she didn't state her reason but was consistently refusing gay couples to stay at her B&B, they'd still be breaking the law, they'd still be fined, and it'd be correct to do so.
I can't help but hope that huge numbers of gay couples now phone up the place now to try and book rooms, just to wind up the owner, kind of like a mass trespass, but a gay one, via the phone, but on a B&B rather than land, and without bikes.
You know what I mean
I can't help but hope that huge numbers of gay couples now phone up the place now to try and book rooms, just to wind up the owner, kind of like a mass trespass, but a gay one, via the phone, but on a B&B rather than land, and without bikes.
They should all book under a male and female name. One should turn up in really poor drag. See if the couple are tactless enough to challenge them. Faux outrage could follow "are you suggesting my wife's a man" etc etc
They should all book under a male and female name. One should turn up in really poor drag. See if the couple are tactless enough to challenge them.
I'm up for that, do you want to be my husband or wife....
Wife please.
I have the requisite big hands and stubble
Wife please.
You realise if they let us stay you will really have to act out wifely duties
Wasn't this an episode of [i]Bottom[/i]?
Wasn't this an episode of Bottom?
Oh, the irony!
nick griffin, homophobia and fascist bouncers all in one thread?! Please stop, my bladder may well rupture
You see this is what happens when you drive a liberal agenda just a little too far. If you alienate otherwise relatively liberal people with a liberal agenda that marginalises their beliefs, you create a more receptive audience for this fascist to air his views.
There will be people, probably Christians but not exclusively so, who agree with the sentiment he expresses and that is very dangerous. It's a short step from thinking he has a point on this subject, to thinking he has a point on any other view he may hold.
David Starkey has called this trend a 'new liberal tyranny' and I agree with him. If you drive a 'rights' agenda for one group at the expense of another, then that's not equality its hegemony.
A few other points; people have said if it's OK to discriminate against the gay couple would it be OK to do so against blacks for example.
No it wouldn't but no one is claiming the right to do that on religious grounds. Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith; being black isn't.
It's a business so therefore they forefit their right to chose who they do and don't let into their house. I can understand the argument, but there are a lot of examples where some rules don't apply to very small businesses simply because it wouldn't be practical to impose those rules on those businesses. There can be exceptions to rules.
It also doesn't appear to be illegal for holiday resorts to discriminate on the basis of age - for example I regularly come across notices that prevent children from being guests at various places in the UK and EU. No one seems to be upset about that.
are we missing the point a bit here that Nick Griffin put their home address up on twitter and suggested a protest?!
but proving the reason may be tricky if they don't blab.whether the discriminators (sp?) "say" or not, it's illegal to discriminate for the reasona above.
Serious question.
Is it illegal discrimination to refuse to let an Aberdonian and his sheep share a double room?
are we missing the point a bit here that Nick Griffin put their home address up on twitter and suggested a protest?!
It shows he's an idiot. If he'd been really smart he would have confined the protest to making the point about how an equality agenda is actually discriminating against another group.
If he'd been truly smart....which he isn't, because he's ultimately an idiot.
except it's not really is it?an equality agenda is actually discriminating against another group.
Equality Act 2010 for lesbian, gay and bisexual people
It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation when providing goods, facilities or services, in education, when selling or letting premises or when exercising public functions.
Didn't the B&B owner say that she refused to let unmarried individuals share a double bed? Does the Equality Act include discrimination on the grounds of marital status?
David Starkey has called this trend a 'new liberal tyranny' and I agree with him. If you drive a 'rights' agenda for one group at the expense of another, then that's not equality its hegemony.
Starkey is a shouty bigot who isn't worth listening to unless it's something to do with the Tudors. Agreeing with Starkey is agreeing with a blinkered old fool. The man has about as much right to speak on social and cultural issues as the Pope has on married life.
It also doesn't appear to be illegal for holiday resorts to discriminate on the basis of age - for example I regularly come across notices that prevent children from being guests at various places in the UK and EU. No one seems to be upset about that.
Probably because no laws are broken in imposing such restrictions (again I'd imagine some H+S clause permits them to do so). Interesting that you don't mention pubs and nighclubs; also places where children aren't generally allowed. Personally, I'm quite happy that toddlers aren't wandering all over the pub i'm in at 10 o'clock at night but maybe that's just me.
Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith; being black isn't.
Bigotry is bigotry, however you dress it up. Anyway, plenty of people seem to be able to call themselves Christians without taking on the homophobic baggage. Are they then not true Christians?
But being drunk isn't the same as being black or gay is it. You refusing someone because of their behaviour in that case, not because of what they are.
Refusing someone a double bed but offering them a twin is almost certainly down to expected behaviour, no? To wit, "you're not having a double bed in case you shag in it."
geetee1972 - MemberIf you alienate otherwise relatively liberal people with a liberal agenda that marginalises their beliefs, you create a more receptive audience for this fascist to air his views.
Except they're not liberals.
They think their religious belief takes precedence over the laws of the land.
David Starkey has called this trend a 'new liberal tyranny' and I agree with him. If you drive a 'rights' agenda for one group at the expense of another, then that's not equality its hegemony.
Well, their is no 'right' to break the law.
And yes, sometimes peoples wishes and desires conflict with each other.
We, as a society have decided that the rights of gay people not to suffer discrimination based on their sexuality outweigh the rights of those who irrationaly wish to discriminate against them.
Just as we've decided that the rights of people to travel on the roads in safety outweigh the rights of those who wish to drive dangerously.
You see this is what happens when you drive a liberal agenda just a little too far.
Heil we go again..
A few other points; people have said if it's OK to discriminate against the gay couple would it be OK to do so against blacks for example.No it wouldn't but no one is claiming the right to do that on religious grounds. Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith; being black isn't.
So what about refusing people of other religions? Or heathen atheists? Is that okay then?
What if your particular religion believes that [insert race here] are lower forms of life?
Moreover, why should bigotry [i]"on religious grounds"[/i] get special legal allowances over normal everyday bigotry?
Aren't we supposed to be a secular country?
So geetee, you think its ok to be homophobic as long as its part of a belief system?
David Starkey has called this trend a 'new liberal tyranny'
Perhaps its the context of Wrecker's big hands and stubble but I read that as 'New Liberal Tranny"
Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith;
don't confuse faith and doctrine.
[i]are we missing the point a bit here that Nick Griffin put their home address up on twitter and suggested a protest?! [/i]
No, we covered that on the first page.
auto correct? maybe not 😉[b]Heil[/b] we go again..
So geetee, you think its ok to be homophobic as long as its part of a belief system?
And that illustrates his and David Starkey's point perfectly, rather than engage in a perfectly sensible argument, you choose to call him homophobic. Is he the one guilty of intolerance?
The level of hypocrisy in the responses above is breathtaking. You all think it's perfectly OK to marginalise Christian in about as derisory way as those Christians marginalise homosexuals.
You are hypocrites, plain and simple.
Do I think it's OK to discriminate just because of religion? No I don't and I think the world will be a better place when man kind has let go of its need for religion altogether.
Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy. I wouldn't like it, but that's not the same thing.
Bigotry is bigotry, however you dress it up
Yes it is and a lot of people on here are biggoted towards CHristians and they think that's OK because people who are Christians are just wackos who don't deserve to be treated with respect.
Again, I call you a hypocrite.
I lapsed my religious belief a long time.
In the Sandals Jamaica holiday advert small print i noticed that it said rooms were only available to mixed sex couples.
I know out there they are all uppity about gay people but can they discriminate in a UK advert?
This was a couple of years ago by the way.
I haven't seen any pictures of the couple in question, so please excuse me for asking the fairly obvious initial question. But were either of them ginger?
Was either of them a sheep?
Probably because no laws are broken in imposing such restrictions (
This was in reference to holiday resorts restricting access to children. I would need a lawyer to comment on this, but it seems like it break the law of discrimination on the grounds of age.
A pub is a poor example because of the licensing laws but it does show very well that you can have exceptions to exclusion rules.
You realise if they let us stay you will really have to act out wifely duties
No problems. I can moan, nag, criticise your attire and fake a headache without too much bother.
Just as long as I get to wear a dress.
A few other points; people have said if it's OK to discriminate against the gay couple would it be OK to do so against blacks for example.No it wouldn't but no one is claiming the right to do that on religious grounds. Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith; being black isn't.
They are exactly the same. Justifying discrimination against a gay couple because it is "against my religion" is exactly the same as justifying discrimination against blacks because "they can't be trusted" or whatever. Religion and racism are both just beliefs, neither should give someone the right to discriminate against others.
This was in reference to holiday resorts restricting access to children. I would need a lawyer to comment on this, but it seems like it break the law of discrimination on the grounds of age.
Then find out how exactly it does 'break the law', rather than assuming it does.
A pub is a poor example because of the licensing laws but it does show very well that you can have exceptions to exclusion rules.
so you can apply 'exceptions' to some places but not others? On what grounds?
Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy. I wouldn't like it, but that's not the same thing.
No sorry. That's just never going to work. You can't just allow large groups of people to ignore the law just because they think they know better.
Unless they are motorists obviously.