[Closed] Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.