You are here: Home » News »

Say hello to the new Justice Secretary – he believes B&Bs should be able to bar gay people

September 4, 2012 10:54 am

Tags:

Share this Article

Chris Grayling has just been made Justice Secretary. He believes B&Bs should be able to bar gay people. Here’s the quote, from back in 2010:

“I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.

“I personally always took the view that… if you look at the case of ‘Should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from their hotel?’

“I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.”

Now he’s in charge of Justice…

(H/T: @IanDunt)

http://twitter.com/tim_nicholls Tim Nicholls

A Justice Secretary who’s own views are in direct contradiction to the Equality Act 2010.
bre616uk

He should make a good Justice Secretary then. Why should the state force home owners to admit people into their homes against their own wishes.
http://www.facebook.com/jim.crowder2 Jim Crowder

And should a Labour owned B&B be able to refuse BNP members?
- williamtheconker
  
  That’s a good point. What about it Mark Ferguson?
markfergusonuk

Because it’s discriminatory. And because opening up your own home doesn’t mean the same thing if you run a B&B!
- charles.ward
  
  A lot of businesses don’t allow all male groups (to avoid stag parties). I believe some universities have women only areas. Would you outlaw these forms of descrimination as well? Should a gay B&B owner be forced to accomodate someone like Fred Phelps?
  
  Is all discrimination to be condemed or just the stuff you disapprove of?
- bre616uk
  
  Private individuals should be free to discriminate against whomsoever they choose in their own homes, a right they have always enjoyed until very recently. Any persons affected by this are free to go elsewhere. B & Bs are private homes, they are not hotel chains. There is a big difference. Private decisions such as this should be respected not condemned in a free society. The state should keep out of people’s private affairs; it is becoming increasingly intrusive in the UK. Because it is now the law doesn’t make it right. There is such a thing as an unjust law and this is a good example.
Hugh

I think the Justice Department is only responsible for criminal justice; the Equality Act is really the responsibility of the Home Office.
- Brumanuensis
  
  The MoJ has responsibility for civil justice too, but otherwise Hugh is correct, so far as I can tell.
markfergusonuk

It is explicitly against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. I believe that law is correct. Chris Grayling doesn’t. Do you?
- charles.ward
  
  You are missing the point. I’m not sure what the law should be. I feel uncomfortable with laws against discrimination which are not applied consistently. I can also see problems with wide ranging discrimination laws that would prevent all female environments (for example).
  
  The law prevents discrimination on the basis of gender, should a B&B owner be allowed to refuse accomodation to a group of young men because he/she fears they may be a stag party?
  
  If a B&B owner wanted to have a female only B&B (perhaps some women would feel safer in this environment) should that be illegal?
  
  If I were a B&B owner I would have no problem with gay residents. However I understand that other people feel differently and I’m uncomfortable preventing them from deciding who to do business with.
  
  I’m sure if you owned a B&B there would be certain people or groups you would like to exclude and it would trouble you if you were forced to let them in your home or close your business.
  
  Can’t we all just not get along without getting the law involved?
Brumanuensis

Your comparison is absurd. The stag party and Fred Phelps are examples of groups that potentially pose a strong risk of disturbing the peace. A gay couple in a B&B, unless they’re busy fornicating in the dining room at breakfast time or some such thing, pose no such risk. And frankly, if you don’t like gay people, don’t open a B&B.
- John_Dore
  
  Whilst I have no religion, I cannot agree to forcing a person with strongly held religious beliefs having to admit gay people. Its just as wrong as discriminating against gay people. This is a joke situation.
- charles.ward
  
  So any group of men pose a “strong risk” of disturbing the peace.
  
  It’s funny how the people who shout loudest against discrimination are the ones least likely to recognise their own prejudice.
Brumanuensis

To be honest, he can’t be much worse than Ken Clarke – whose Legal Aid Bill was an absolute abomination – but I expect more idiotic ranting about the HRA and possibly more dodgy pop culture references (remember how Baltimore and Manchester are pretty much identical to Grayling, which I suppose is hardly surprising when you represent a seat in one of the most affluent parts of Surrey).
http://www.facebook.com/dennis.bradley.18 Dennis Bradley

How idiotic is this man. It is misleading
at best to conclude that if a person is using their home as a business that
they should be able to discriminate. Perhaps with the same argument they
should be allowed to exclude Jews or Blacks or people of a religious belief
that differs from their own? The point is that they are making money.
They are a business. Whether it is their home or not, they are
making a profit. And as such they MUST abide by the same rules as all
other businesses. If this is not acceptable to them, then they should
stop using their home as a place of business. They must choose between
running a business (and making money) or having a private home where they can
discriminate and hate all they want.
markfergusonuk

That’s completely different – it’s against the law to bar people on grounds of sexuality. Do you disagree with that law?
- williamtheconker
  
  Did I escape your answer to the question Mr F?
  And sexual discrimination is not acceptable. If you open a B&B you should be open to all-comers.
- Hugh
  
  That’s a circular argument.
- http://twitter.com/Chas_Boz David Arrowsmith
  
  Certain B & B owners would consider God’s law and its injunctions against sodomy to be above the Ministry of Justice or human law. They would see their eventual place in heaven as being more important than the rights of gays.
markfergusonuk

We can get along without the law getting involved if people stop discriminating against gay people because of their own personal deep seated prejudices…
- charles.ward
  
  So do you think all female B&Bs should be shut down?
  
  You say that you are against prejudice but it seems that you are only against certain types of prejudice. It appears you are only interested in using the law against those that disagree with you.
  
  I would not have a problem with a all female B&B refusing me a room, after all there are plenty more places I could stay. I don’t think that there would be so many B&Bs prohibiting gay couples that it would pose any greater inconvenience to the gay community than the presence of all female B&Bs poses to me.
  
  For me to call for the closure of all female B&Bs would be petty and vindictive. Unless I see evidence that gay people are having real problems finding accomodation (not just being refused entry to one B&B) then I assume that this is the same.
markfergusonuk

There is nothing “private” about a B&B. If there was, I wouldn’t be able to buy a room in one.
- bre616uk
  
  A B & B is a private property into which the resident owner has allowed admission to the public. The decision on whom to admit, or refuse admission to, has until recently always remained with the owner. This is as it should be – it is the owner’s property and home. The owner should not be required to give reasons for the refusal of admission, regardless of how irrational, quixotic or discriminatory it may seem to others. This is what happens in a free society. Those who take the opposite view and consider that the state has the right to dictate who B & B owners should admit, believe in a totalitarian state. It is as simple as that.
  - markfergusonuk
    
    So it’s totalitarian to say that people who are running a service – that’s what a B&B is – shouldn’t discriminate on grounds of sexuality?
    That is complete and utter nonsense.
    Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
  - Brumanuensis
    
    What about the freedom of the person being discriminated against?
    
    This isn’t a straight-forward question of free vs unfree bre616.
Brumanuensis

You know, for a man who complained that I hadn’t read his post properly over on another thread, you appear to have difficulties with reading comprehension yourself. I wrote:

‘The stag party…[is] an example of [a group] that potentially pose[s] a strong risk of disturbing the peace”.

You traduced this as:

‘Any group of men pose a “strong risk” of disturbing the peace’

…

If you think a stag party is the same as ‘any group of men’, well, I suppose you’ve lived a rather sheltered existance. If a gay couple were noisy and disruptive whilst staying at the B&B, there is not a court in the land that would not uphold the right of the owner to exclude them, as a nuisance to other guests and/or neighbours.

Stag parties are generally characterised by:

a). ‘Boisterous’ behaviour arising from high alcohol consumption

b). Behaviour that is frequently anti-social.

Ibid. ‘Hen party’. I think any B&B owner that wanted to refuse admission to such a group would be well within their rights. Unless gay people all behave in that way – in my experience the answer to this question is ‘no’ – I don’t think there is any objective justification for exclusion. Fred Phelps spends a lot of time shouting abuse at gay people, so far as I can tell. I doubt his presence in a B&B owned by gay people would be, shall we say, ’congenial’, to either party. Ditto above.

Now, would you would tolerate a B&B that proclaimed ‘no niggers or micks allowed’?
- charles.ward
  
  The problem is that “stag party” is not a legally defined term and that even if it were it would be unfair to assume that all stag parties are anti-social. If an all male group claims not to be a stag party then the business cannot prove otherwise which is why they generally prohibit all male groups if they don’t want stag parties.
  
  Businesses do discriminate against all male groups and you may think this is fine because there is a greater risk of anti-social behaviour. You seem to be ok with this sort of prejudice. I don’t see the difference between this and refusing entry to black people because the crime rate is higher amongst blacks than whites.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    I didn’t use the term ‘stag party’ as some sort of precisely-defined category – which it isn’t, unlike ‘gay’. It was an illustrative example of the sort of group whose conduct might offer reasonable grounds for refusing admission. Gay people do not pose any sort of equivalent potential problem.
    
    The fact you are conflating the two speaks volumes.
    - charles.ward
      
      So what’s your position on excluding other groups which contain disproportionate numbers of undesirables?
Brumanuensis

If they don’t want to John, they shouldn’t open up their home to members of the public. If you offer a public convenience – in the broad sense of the term – you cannot discriminate against members of the public, unless you have objectively sound grounds for doing so, i.e they are violent or drunk or are behaving anti-socially.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  You know I don’t know the law, so in principle, what is the justification for refusing a group of stag night people? Your last phrase talks about them being drunk or behaving anti-socially in the present tense, which is a fair enough reason to exclude them, but to refuse to have them at all on the grounds that they “might” in the future cause a disturbance seems a bit pre-judgemental, which is I believe the origin of the word “prejudice”.
  
  Should the police be allowed to ban groups of young people from a town centre because they might get drunk? What about stopping and searching a young black man because he might be carrying a knife? It was before my time in England, but there were some laws that were disallowed in the 70s and 80s on that matter: I have read of them and they were called the “Sus” laws.
  
  The anti-prejudice laws appear to have good intentions, but seem to me to be applied unevenly.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    The ‘sus’ laws’ problem was a blanket approach of stop-and-search designed to harrass the black community in certain areas, by certain police forces. I wasn’t suggesting that all stag parties should be prevented from staying at B&Bs purely because they are stag parties, but if they were drunk-and-disorderly – which, let’s be honest, is fairly likely if they’re out on a stag night – then I think the owner of a B&B would have a right to refuse entry.
    
    If they were being perfectly civilised, on the other hand, it would be absurd and unreasonable to do so. My point was that certain groups carry an objectively higher risk of anti-social behaviour and a B&B would be entitled to take steps to mitigate this risk – i.e. requiring them to return before a certain hour, reminding them to show consideration for other guests, warning them verbally of the consequences of misbehaviour, etc. It is the behaviour that matters, rather than the person. So if a gay couple were behaving anti-socially and were excluded for that reason, it would be absurd for them to accuse the owners of homophobia.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      I think you miss my point, which is that some hotels routinely refuse to take bookings for stag nights even before the day, so they are pre-judging. So in those cases it is not the behaviour which matters, as there is no behaviour on which to judge.
      
      Try a search on Google for and you will find many listings for businesses that refuse stag parties, so this does happen.
      
      …I should add that my own stag party was a very social event. I broke the English conventions by organising it myself, there were twelve of us and we were 7 men and 5 women. I do not recall anyone taking their clothes off, and my friends did not tie me to the front of the night train to Inverness. So I am not an advocate for completely uncontrolled and drunken debauchery!
      - http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone
        
        “I do not recall anyone taking their clothes off, ”
        
        Goodness! Weren’t you disappointed?
        
        But the stag night/hen party categorisation can easily be avoided.
        
        A dear friend of mine (of a desperately respectable disposition, unfortunately) booked a table in a renowned restaurant recently. She told me of the conversation with the maitre d’: She: “It’s for a hen party.” He: “I don’t want to hear that.” She: “I’d like to book a table for fourteen.” He: “Certainly. What date?”
    - Brumanuensis
      
      I think we’re agreeing with each other without realising it, Jaime. I suppose the hotels might be taking a prudential approach, but at least they are doing so on the basis of a well-established risk, rather like newly-qualified drivers have to pay higher premiums, even though this may be unfair to individual drivers – which is pretty much how I felt when I saw my first ever premium!
      
      I will conduct the search you recommend to look into this matter.
      
      You haven’t lived until you’ve been tied onto a locomotive roaring through the Scottish highlands. It’s not too late you know. Maybe your wife could arrange it as a surprise wedding anniversary treat? (‘You remember that very civilised stag night you had, darling? Well, I’ve had an idea…’).
- Hugh
  
  ” you cannot discriminate against members of the public, unless you have objectively sound grounds for doing so,”
  
  That’s not true. You can refuse to serve the public because they are fat, ginger, have bad breath, look funny, remind you of an uncle you didn’t like or support Manchester United. You just can’t refuse to serve them on grounds of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    Yes, but the law cannot prove that ordinarily, although if it could be proven I suspect there would be a prima facie case against you.
    - Hugh
      
      No, there wouldn’t. It’s not permissible because it can’t be proved. It’s permissible because there’s no law against it.
      
      Business owners are perfectly free to discriminate against any but those protected by discrimination legislation.
Brumanuensis

“Can’t we all just not get along without getting the law involved?”

Human history says no.

“If I were a B&B owner I would have no problem with gay residents. However I understand that other people feel differently and I’m uncomfortable preventing them from deciding who to do business with”.

Of course, anti-discrimination ordinances are a restriction on choice, but freedom of choice is not the only public good. It is more important, to society as a whole, that bigotry and prejudice be eliminated and that people be allowed access to the full range of public conveniences, regardless of any innate characteristics such as ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. that might be used to discriminate against them. It’s all very well worrying about the feelings of the B&B owner, but imagine you were gay and got turned away from a B&B for no other reason.

There are cases where discrimination is justified for objective reasons, such as medical health, for instance, but these should be kept to a minimum. A B&B or hotel is not a private dwelling and as its intended purpose is to serve the public, it should not discriminate against individual members unless there are good objective grounds for doing so. Being gay is not one of them. It’s unfortunate for those with antiquated beliefs, but I’m sure racists in the American Deep South felt similarly uncomfortable with having to sit next to black people on buses, after integration. We don’t indulge their prejudice now though, nor should we.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  (Replaced into correct box)
  
  Brum,
  
  There are already women-only B&Bs advertising themselves on the internet. e.g. from the first page of Google:
  
  http://www.chymorgen.co.uk/index_en.html
  http://www.seawaycottage.com
  
  There are also gay and lesbian only B&Bs and campsites.Those seem to be innate characteristics to me which exclude a minimum of 50% of people.
  
  Which is more discriminatory, a policy that excludes a small minority of people (homosexuals), or a large majority of people (heterosexuals)? What about a policy that excludes 100% of men?It is of little use saying “ah but there are other hotels that take heterosexuals or men”, because these are not chain businesses, and do not profess to offer separate but equal accommodation. As sole trading businesses, they are 100% discriminatory in their sole business premises to innate characteristics, which to my impression is not allowed under the various gender or sexuality discrimination Acts.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    Jaime, I think there are grounds for disputing the appropriateness of those institutions too. Personally I’m open to the idea of those arrangements being challenged under the Equality Act.
    
    However, there are some qualitative differences between restrictions against those in a position of social dominance and those who are traditionally discriminated against, which is why I have no problem with All-Women shortlists, as they’re remedying a pre-existing disadvantage. Of course, for B&Bs the problem may not extant, so a restriction may be inappropriate, but I can go either way on this matter.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      Brum,
      
      are those qualitative differences (I personally do not think that is a good argument, but let us explore using your categorisation) enshrined in law? I would not think so, but I have no legal book in front of me.
      
      And so if I am correct in my suspicion, if these differences are not enshrined in the law, it would not be possible for a lawyer to make an argument in front of a judge that “no gays” is wrong, but “no men” is OK. The judge would rule the argument to be political or “ultra vires” and dismiss the argument.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Jaime, as I understand EU law on discrimination, allowances are made for what is commonly known as ‘positive discrimination’. Generally an exception from anti-discrimination laws is allowed on objective grounds – e.g. the person is incapable of performing the work required, or the redressing of past discrimination in order to achieve greater equality – e.g. admitting more women into workplaces through a quasi-quota system.
        
        However, the jurisprudence reflects what is under consideration, so on motor insurance premiums, it was held that higher premiums for young men were a breach of non-discrimination legislation, overturning a previous derogation from non-discrimination directives. I thought that was a strange decision in many ways, but it is legally coherent.
markfergusonuk

And that’s their prerogative – but in this country we have separation of church and state. And regardless of church, you abide to the laws of the state.
- Hugh
  
  And Grayling never suggested they shouldn’t abide by the law. He was arguing the law should be changed to accommodate them (excuse the pun). Simply saying it’s against the law, while refusing to serve a BNP member isn’t, doesn’t answer the question, should it be? And, if so, why?
markfergusonuk

OK – my view is that a Labour supporting B&B should allow a BNP supporter to stay in their B&B providing the purpose of their stay (and the stay itself) is lawful. If they were just using the B&B in a normal manner then fine. I’m not sure how we got into this hypothetical mind…
jaime taurosangastre candelas

Brum,

There are already women-only B&Bs advertising themselves on the internet. e.g. from the first page of Google:

http://www.chymorgen.co.uk/index_en.html
http://www.seawaycottage.com

There are also gay and lesbian only B&Bs and campsites.Those seem to be innate characteristics to me which exclude a minimum of 50% of people.

Which is more discriminatory, a policy that excludes a small minority of people (homosexuals), or a large majority of people (heterosexuals)? What about a policy that excludes 100% of men?It is of little use saying “ah but there are other hotels that take heterosexuals or men”, because these are not chain businesses, and do not profess to offer separate but equal accommodation. As sole trading businesses, they are 100% discriminatory in their sole business premises to innate characteristics, which to my impression is not allowed under the various gender or sexuality discrimination Acts.
Daniel Speight

Well in my lifetime the in London the signs said

“No Blacks”
“No Irish”
“No Dogs”

Very recently in my travels outside of Britain the minibus had a sign

“No Dogs”
“No Jews”

I guess outside the cabinet room there’s a sign that says

“No Poor People”
“No Dogs”
“No Morals”

What I want to know is what did the dogs do? Sh*t on the floor or something?
Brumanuensis

Depends who you’re referring to.
- charles.ward
  
  Which proves my point.
  
  Your “objective justification for exclusion” is not objective at all, it’s just used to justify discrimination against groups you don’t care about protecting.

Latest

Featured
The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

By Stefan Stern

That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]
Read more →
Comment Europe
We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

By Rob Marchant

Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]
Read more →
News
Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]
Read more →
Comment Featured
Is party politics dying out?

By Mark Ferguson

This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]
Read more →
News
Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]
Read more →