Well said Chris Grayling

[Frutos]

Not stritly true, you don't have to be homophobic to not like the sound of 2 men have bum sex all night. Now we all know they are more promiscious than average due to the fact it's 2 men and men always want it. So , based on that then yeah turn them away if you want. Your house , do what you want

You do understand that it is possible for two homosexual men to be in each other's company without engaging in sexual activity, right?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Maybe public schoolboy could tell us what a posh wanker looks like?

 

[Fungus]

Anybody who runs a B&B still has to follow the rule of law. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 clearly states that no one should be refused goods and services on the grounds of their sexuality.

You don't get to be above the law just because you've set up a B&B business!

No, you have to set up a religion for that.

Actually, even that's not strictly true, anyway - for example, chemists can legally refuse to dispense drugs such as contraceptives, if they have a religious objection. (I don't know if a "moral" objection puts you above the law, though.)

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

on a point of law.. when a shop keeper displays an item for sale he or she is not obliged to sell that item to someone they do not wish to as it is only deemed as an invitation to treat, so if a B&B owner is displaying a room for £50 per night this is only an Invitation to treat. Please explain the difference

If you are creating an invitation to treat and saying that that invitation to treat is to be denied to some people based on their sexual orientation then that still counts as discrimination as defined by the Equality Act (Sexual Orientations) Regulations Act 2007.

It states: "For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) if, on grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances)."

The Act covers goods, facilities, services and premises. So yes, while an advert for any of these is not legally binding, to deny anyone on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

No, you have to set up a religion for that.

Actually, even that's not strictly true, anyway - for example, chemists can legally refuse to dispense drugs such as contraceptives, if they have a religious objection. (I don't know if a "moral" objection puts you above the law, though.)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that about chemists! Imagine if someone was employed by Boots and then declared that they wouldn't be able to sell any products for any medical reasons because of their religion! I wonder what Boots would do.

 

[beorhthelm]

Its not blatant discrimination , just upholding religious beliefs that have existed in mankind for ever

Ancient Greeks and Romans might disagree with you there. it is blatant discrimination.

No, you have to set up a religion for that.

Actually, even that's not strictly true, anyway - for example, chemists can legally refuse to dispense drugs such as contraceptives, if they have a religious objection. (I don't know if a "moral" objection puts you above the law, though.)

im pretty sure thats not true, in fact wasnt there a case recently of someone trying on exactly this ruse, refusing to dispense the pill because they were catholic? sure it was kick out of court.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

When people are denying others some goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation, they may argue their interpretation of their religious belief has led them to that action. What they can't convincingly deny is that such an action counts as discrimination as set out in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientations) Regulations Act 2007.

There are exceptions set out in the Act, but absolutely none cover using religion by a commercial organisation to deny goods, services, facilities and premises on grounds of sexual orientation.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

This Chris Grayling thing.

Have to agree with him,unless someone here can persuade me otherwise,if it is your own home i do think you are entitled to be selective.

 

[Frutos]

If you want to be selective about who you do or do not allow into your own home that's absolutely fine, but the law prevents you from discriminating if you're running a business, whether that business is in your own home or not.

If you choose to run a business from your home, then you have to understand that you are subject to the laws on the matter.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Interesting point,however do you think the 'usual suspects' would have been so quick to condem the owners had they say been muslim ?

 

[beorhthelm]

if it is your own home i do think you are entitled to be selective.

but its not your home, its a place of business if you are running a B&B. would you allow an exemption for those with religious beliefs against blacks? would you allow an exemption for anyone who just dislikes gays with no particular faith reason?

what they are trying to say is that religion and faith is above the law. that is plain and simply wrong.

 

[El Presidente]

Have to agree with him,unless someone here can persuade me otherwise,if it is your own home i do think you are entitled to be selective.

Presumably if there was a sign in the window saying 'No Niggers' you would be happy with that then too?

After all, it's just being selective.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Interesting point,however do you think the 'usual suspects' would have been so quick to condem the owners had they say been muslim ?

What's that got to do with anything? !

Anyway, the discussion about Chris Grayling has taken place here
Well said Chris Grayling - North Stand Chat

Fixtures, it you will.

 

[Greyrun]

If Mendelson turned up seeking a bed for the night i would have to refuse nothing to do with sexual orientation just that he was a zanu-labour scum bag.

 

[public school boy]

So would it be against the law for a B&B owner to turn away an unmarried Hetrosexual couple?

 

[Greyrun]

The leader of The Tory Party

By my words i am condemned.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Yes, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientations) Regulations Act also outlaws a B&B owner turning away an unmarried heterosexual couple on grounds of sexual orientation.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

It could have alot,Goldstone. I don't think the 'usual suspects' would be on their soapbox. El Presidente,i agree with you but if this B & B is registered with the local authority as a private family busines,would not customer awareness etc have been discussed ?

 

[El Presidente]

Having seen what Mandelson proposes with the Digital Economy Bill I would refuse to allow him within a mile of my house.

He is in the pocket of big business and does not give a flying f*** about the rights of the individual. It is an insidious, ill-considered and dangerous law that erodes Habeus Corpus and is the equivalent of saying that if someone steals your car and kills a person in it then you are guilty.

......and don't get me started on the 30% cuts he is putting through by stealth in Higher Education.....

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It could have alot,Goldstone. I don't think the 'usual suspects' would be on their soapbox. El Presidente,i agree with you but if this B & B is registered with the local authority as a private family busines,would not customer awareness etc have been discussed ?

I don't think anyone who disagrees with Grayling have been on a soapbox as you put it - at least not on NSC. Both the NSC threads today about Grayling have been started by people in support of him. The main response has been people clarifying how using your home as a business premise will lead to it being treated as such in law.

So it's been no drama, no heated, shouting matches - just clarification.