Well said Chris Grayling

[Goldstone Rapper]

I don't think it is discriminating against homosexuals by not letting them stay at a B&B if the owner is discusted by what he or she might consider as unnatural acts.May be I'm old fashoned but I will not change my views

An owner is free to think homosexuality is unnatural. That's not changed.

But when he or she sets up a B&B business, he or she has a responsibility to abide by the laws affecting businesses.

The owner may not agree with the law and can make some effort to getting the law changed. However, if the owner cannot abide by the law, he or she should not be setting up the business in the first place.

Margaret Thatcher put it well when she said, "Those who rely on freedom must uphold the rule of law and have a duty and a responsibility to do so and not try to substitute their own system for it."

 

[drew]

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.....

Just out of interest, which parts of the bill are you up in arms about? Is it the proposals relating to ISPs?

I hate being serious on NSC, but I can only quote what I have read:

Religious opt out in pharmacies to continue under new body
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), which will replace the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPS) as the regulator, has given pharmacists the go ahead to refuse to provide services that clash with their religious views.

The pledge came as the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) adopt the existing RPS code of ethics, despite heavy criticism of the inclusion in it of a conscience clause. The conscience clause — which allows pharmacists to opt out of services such as providing the morning after pill and other emergency contraception — will continue to form part of the code, the GPhC said.

However, exercising the powers could become subject to conditions such as displaying notices telling patients about pharmacy services that could be refused on religious grounds and clear guidelines on where it is acceptable for pharmacists to signpost patients to another provider when refusing supply.

GPhC Chair Bob Nicholls said: "The steer for the Council is to include the clause with guidance and draw attention to that guidance."

The comments follow intense media criticism of the conscience clause earlier this month when an employee at a Lloyds pharmacy in Sheffield refused to fulfil a prescription for contraception on religious grounds.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "As so often happens with self-regulation, the new GPhC have protected their own, but failed their customers. This was a perfect opportunity to severely restrict the exercise of this supposed conscience clause which has caused a great deal of embarrassment and inconvenience to people recently. It is simply unacceptable for pharmacists to be able to arbitrarily refuse to provide medication that has been prescribed by a doctor, or that is legally available without prescription. Although they should, pharmacists do not always direct customers to the nearest suitable pharmacy, and even if they do, the customer may have difficulty in going there, especially in rural areas. The longer the delay in taking emergency contraception, the less effective it is likely to be, so the results of the existing and proposed policy could be catastrophic. We are finding an increasing incidence of refusals and this problem is growing alarmingly. We call on the NHS to step in and deal with this problem on a contractual basis."

Mr Sanderson added that the display of a notice saying that prescription fulfilment will be restricted due to religious considerations (something we had suggested in the consultation) would — if properly enforced — give people the opportunity to boycott such premises and find another chemist that won't try to control customers' choices by imposing their religion on others.

Trouble with that is that it is ok if you have a choice of pharmacies to go to but in more rural areas you might be very limited.

 

[User removed 4]

God, you're a humourless berk, you really are.

You obviously didn't get the reference - unlike subsequent posters.

no I didn't get the reference,not surprising really as I find harry enfield about as funny as a fart in a spacesuit and have never seen the character, humourless berk? Another pot kettle moment 'wozza' tha man don't give a f***, you hilarious funster!

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't think it is discriminating against homosexuals by not letting them stay at a B&B if the owner is discusted by what he or she might consider as unnatural acts.May be I'm old fashoned but I will not change my views

so in your opinion its fine to discriminate on any grounds one might find distateful? one could for instance have a moral objection to private education and therefore bar anyone from their B&B who they beleive to be a bit posh, on the basis they probably went private. Thats OK is it?

 

[cunning fergus]

On a more macro level there seems to be a great deal of people these days who seem to accept that all the laws passed by Governement must be good law............abide by the law of the land people they say, like it or lump it, nah-nah-na-na-nah. What a tiresome arguement.

Just how many homosexuals were being prevented from staying in B&Bs anyway? I must have missed Stonewall's inevitable mass street protests and picketing of evil bigoted B&B owners as well as Chakrabati's manifest outrage on TV concerning the evident sexuality apartheid that exists in the hospitality industry.

This legislation (as with all legislation) is created by groups of lawyers and then other groups of lawyers make a very comfortable living interpretaing, defending and prosecuting the public and so it goes on. No doubt it was all done with the best intentions but then again where have we heard that before.

In the first 10 years of Government new Labour passed over 3,000 new laws and offences. But then again Blair, Darling, Harman, Straw, Alexander are all lawyers to (name just a few) so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Wankers the lot of them.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

On a more macro level there seems to be a great deal of people these days who seem to accept that all the laws passed by Governement must be good law............abide by the law of the land people they say, like it or lump it, nah-nah-na-na-nah. What a tiresome arguement.

Just how many homosexuals were being prevented from staying in B&Bs anyway? I must have missed Stonewall's inevitable mass street protests and picketing of evil bigoted B&B owners as well as Chakrabati's manifest outrage on TV concerning the evident sexuality apartheid that exists in the hospitality industry.

This legislation (as with all legislation) is created by groups of lawyers and then other groups of lawyers make a very comfortable living interpretaing, defending and prosecuting the public and so it goes on. No doubt it was all done with the best intentions but then again where have we heard that before.

In the first 10 years of Government new Labour passed over 3,000 new laws and offences. But then again Blair, Darling, Harman, Straw, Alexander are all lawyers to (name just a few) so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Wankers the lot of them.

Well, actually, no. No one here has said all law passed by government is good law - that's the meaning you've added to what has been said. In fact, many of the people defending the Equality Act would have been opposed to Section 28 of the Local Government Act outlawing intentionally 'promoting' homosexuality. Also, as this thread shows, there is a lot of opposition to the draconian Digital Economy Bill and, I'd add, the way it is being rushed through Parliament without debate.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 actually came about because of widespread disquiet about the Labour Government not having any intention of outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The government was forced to change its tune.

But yeah, stick to your generalisations and smears if you want.

 

[glasfryn]

Can't you just tell theres an election round the corner.......................boring

 

[public school boy]

so in your opinion its fine to discriminate on any grounds one might find distateful? one could for instance have a moral objection to private education and therefore bar anyone from their B&B who they beleive to be a bit posh, on the basis they probably went private. Thats OK is it?

If the owner feel that way that's their decision. The ex public school person can take their business else where. It's the B&B owner who at the end of the day misses out on the cost of the room.

 

[Napper]

It's breathtaking, and somewhat worrying, how many people here think it's OK to discriminate against a certain section of society.

Allegedly we're all football supporters on here - another section of society discriminated against by politicians, the police and the general public. Look at how SWEAT and LDC / Falmer residents portrayed us - thugs who beat up grannies and urinate in peoples gardens. Not one of us liked THAT discrimination but it's OK to discriminate against homosexuals Hypocrites !!!!!

Are you for real ?

 

[cunning fergus]

Well, actually, no. No one here has said all law passed by government is good law - that's the meaning you've added to what has been said. In fact, many of the people defending the Equality Act would have been opposed to Section 28 of the Local Government Act outlawing intentionally 'promoting' homosexuality. Also, as this thread shows, there is a lot of opposition to the draconian Digital Economy Bill and, I'd add, the way it is being rushed through Parliament without debate.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 actually came about because of widespread disquiet about the Labour Government not having any intention of outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The government was forced to change its tune.

But yeah, stick to your generalisations and smears if you want.

Nope, my point was based on FACT, New Labour has passed THOUSANDS of new laws. Its become endemic in their method of Government and it is a shit way to govern a country. It seems to me that many people support this approach, and so the legislative steamroller continues. Arguements to dissenting voices predicated on 'its the law of the land' are not constructive in a mature democracy and deny credibility to anyone not falling square behind the law. In some countries dissidents are not taken seriously and are thrown in jail.

You know more than me about the Equality Act and Digital Economy Bill, however it seems to me there is widespread disquiet about the Equality Act now since its introduction. I don't recall 'widespread disquiet' from discriminated minority groups beforehand but then Shami is on TV so often these days I may have missed an appearance.

I would contend that New Labour recognise that there is votes in these kind of social laws and are prepared to make the electoral trade off for good copy. Whilst to some extent that's politics, it is also divisive and does not contribute to the creation of a culture of tolerance, in fact it actually does the opposite.

Like I say, its a shit way to govern a country.........which is my considered view not a smear.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

If the owner feel that way that's their decision. The ex public school person can take their business else where. It's the B&B owner who at the end of the day misses out on the cost of the room.

When someone says 'you can't use that room because you are gay/black/hereosexual/English/irish/public school educated/whatever' there is more at stake than what financial return a B&B owner gets.

That is the case irrespective of whether someone can take their business elsewhere or not.

 

[public school boy]

When someone says 'you can't use that room because you are gay/black/hereosexual/English/irish/public school educated/whatever' there is more at stake than what financial return a B&B owner gets.

That is the case irrespective of whether someone can take their business elsewhere or not.

The owner should have the right to decide who stays. If I turn up at a Hotel or B&B and I am refused a room I go else where.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Would it be ok for someone to turn away a customer because they were black? No. Of course not. So it should not be OK to turn someone away for their sexuality.

It is, after all, 2010.

 

[Napper]

Would it be ok for someone to turn away a customer because they were black? No. Of course not. So it should not be OK to turn someone away for their sexuality.

It is, after all, 2010.

That would be wrong but they turned them away due to their religion considering it a sin

 

[Hungry Joe]

The owner should have the right to decide who stays. If I turn up at a Hotel or B&B and I am refused a room I go else where.

Does that happen a lot to you then?

 

[public school boy]

Does that happen a lot to you then?

Once in America. I was on tour with a Rock Band and because Bands have a reputation of trashing hotel rooms we were turned away. I must add that the band I was touring with are fine up standing members of society. I think we ended up driving back to Nashville

 

[Hungry Joe]

Once in America. I was on tour with a Rock Band and because Bands have a reputation of trashing hotel rooms we were turned away. I must add that the band I was touring with are fine up standing members of society. I think we ended up driving back to Nashville

Rock bands, like single sex groups (I've been refused entry to campsites based on being part of a single sex group), aren't protected by law though, unless you can prove that said refusal was based on the members of the groups sexuality, race or religion.

 

[beorhthelm]

That would be wrong but they turned them away due to their religion considering it a sin

explain why religion trumps the law. it wasnt long ago that people used religious grounds to discriminate against ethnic backgrounds, indeed some still do. consider if you would find it acceptable if a B&B owner might ban an unmarried couple on the grounds that is sinful.

 

[Napper]

Yeah , also refused entrance to numerous public houses due to where some of the group came from and also due to all male groups. You just accept it and go somewhere else.

 

[bhaexpress]

Personally I think it's fine if somebody refuses to allow somebody on their premises because of heir gender, race or religion. However, they should make their stance perfectly clear in any advertising and also in large letters at their premises. They should also clearly state their views when answering the phone or email.

That way people will know that if they chose to go there they are putting money into the hands of bigots.