Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin…

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 Bottom?

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?!

whether the discriminators (sp?) “say” or not, it’s illegal to discriminate for the reasona above.

but proving the reason may be tricky if they don’t blab.

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.

an equality agenda is actually discriminating against another group.

except it’s not really is it?

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 – Member

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.

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 “on religious grounds” 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.

are we missing the point a bit here that Nick Griffin put their home address up on twitter and suggested a protest?!

No, we covered that on the first page.

Heil we go again..

auto correct? maybe not 😉

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.