Oh dear - i doubt that this is the type of publicity that David Cameron would be hoping for ahead of the General election.

Grayling: "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."
But it's a business, I don't see the difference to any other business   Hey, ho that'll be the gay vote lost along with that of many others who are outraged by this comment, so it's all good

Years ago some BB's and Lodging houses used to have a sign in the window 'No Blacks/No Irish/No foerigners' or something similar ............looking back it's simply outrageous ....are BB's now gonna be given the option to put up a sign 'No Gays'? How very, very foolish - can't imagine how many potential Tory voters have been put off by this ..........and rightly so. Speaks volumes really.

I think there should be a distinction between Bed & Breakfast which is a business run from one's home and what is called Rent a Room which if the rent is under £4250 a year is not regarded as taxable income by the Revenue. Rent a Room covers situations like the person staying can be almost regarded as a member of the family as they are likely to be eating with the family. Although from a politically correct viewpoint gay relationships are exactly the same as straight relationships, for some members of some of the faiths, the thought of gay people carrying out sex acts in their own homes will outweigh the politically correct viewpoint.

It is clear that in future anyone who has provided B&B or Rent a Room will have to immediately cease such provision if they have such views.

My own view is that although I am a lifelong Christian I remember a passage from one of the Gospels where Jesus is being tricked by the Pharisees as to what happens in the next life where a man has divorced one woman and married another. To which wife will he be married to? Jesus says that in the next life we are but as angels, ie sexuality is irrelevant in the next life. So if God isn't concerned about sexuality in the next life, why should we in this life?

I think that we are entering very dangerous territory here. If we stop barmy religious people adhering to their faith then who polices the religions at the even barmier end of the spectrum?

I think all these barmy types should have to make their prejudices known in their B&B adverts or websites. Then discerning gay couples (or straights who'd prefer not to hand over their hard-earned cash to rabid homophobes) could make an informed choice.

I would never ban the gays from my house, they cook me breakfast and bring me cups of tea in bed.  So from me a big YAY for the GAY

One of the nicest B&Bs I've ever stayed in was run by two gay chaps.

Is this a case of the politician falling between two stools? Because it is not possible to adhere to both at the same time.
On the one hand trying to appease those who hold particular religious views.
While on the other trying to please those who are dead against prejudice and inequality.
Is this what they call a "double-bind?"
A case of a politician trying (fruitlessly) to please everybody.
Would it not be wiser to hold a specific view on the matter?

Exactly!

It's a persons right to decide for themselves who they want in their own home.



QUESTION. If you ran a b&b from your own home and 4 shaven headed baseball cap wearing st George crossed gorillas wearing edl membership tops asked you for a room, would you invite them in and cook them tea and breakfast.

Are you comparing gays to a Counter Jihad movement based in England? If you can't give an intelligent answer to a serious question, why bother?

the bloke clearly said if you own the house (B+B) you should have the right to choose who stays
he's not Anti-gay
he just says if you own a house that does b+b-you can choose who stays there

OMG- do gay activists having nothing to do with their time?

booooooooooooring

He would never have said this publicly, he thought he was off mic. Doesn't that say it all.

No cologne, I'm giving another option for people to consider. both of which amounts to it being an individuals choice to allow who they have on their own property.I was wanting to know if people were ok for people to disallow these people I described into their homes as oppossed to disallowing gay couples.





Sorry if it's all above your mindset pet!

I agree with Tattoo here.  I am all for 'live and let live' but surely people have a right for their beliefs to be taken into account. Surely we haven't lost the right to stand up for what we believe in?

The point is that everyone has their own individual Room 101. I agree with Tattoo, whilst I don't understand why so-called Christians would shun gays, I personally wouldn't want members of far right organisations crossing my threshold.

Don't really see how comparing gay people to violent neo-Nazi types is a fair or valid comparison.

We aren't comparing them. I'm saying that everyone has their own individual fears. For some reason these folks have an abject fear and in some cases hatred of gay people. I'm sure that the mechanism is the same as mine for fascists.

The comparison was made, further up the thread.

Sorry! I tend not to read everything  I'm just going on something that Reeta Chakrabarti was saying the other night about everyone having civil liberties, and it made me realise that even I had certain bigotries.

I wouldn't call it bigoted to dislike those whose sole purpose seems to be to enforce their own bigotry on others. I'd call it common sense.

Maybe I can redirect a certain poster to the original point of this thread, should Grayling have said what he did and what does it say for the tories? However, if we need to get stuck on the choice of the B&B owner, IMHO they open their business to punters and that surely means that they should put their personal views aside. What do people want? A sign saying 'no gays allowed'?

I think it says more about the person than the party...

I wasn't comparing gays to people who have strong beliefs in the state of the nation like the edl ( but hey, who knows, many of them could be one and the same), I was comparing the situation regarding who you want or don't want in your own home, and as mount olympus says, the issue is not not about the conservative, it's about an individuals beliefs.

A dislike for bigoted hate-mongers is hardly comparable to homophobia.

Maybe not in your book demantoid.

Ive banned all Conservatives from my BB...kept sticking posters in the windows...

Exactly and, using them as an example is a comparison. Maybe the sign should say 'anybody I don't like the look of, go somewhere else'. As for this being a personal comment from one tory, this tory will be Home Secretary if they get in in 4 weeks. Why should I trust a bigot?

One thing that this brought to mind... Many years ago I was on an educational week at a West Midlands University. Traditionally on the free afternoon the authorities would organise a choice of trips out. One of the options was a trip to a particular religious building. Due to the subject matter of the course a lot of students decided on this option. A senior tutor solemnly addressed the students saying that any menstruating ladies would not be welcome.
We didn't rush to the press to complain. We just said that we were not going and visited Warwick Castle instead.  Simple.

I'm out of here, it's turning into a points scoring thread....AGAIN!

Do you know what the score is then?

Why are you comparing differing views to point scoring?

I'm all for differing views cologne.



But it becomes a point scoring exercise when I have already explained I was not comparing the two groups, I was comparing the 2 situations, which, if you opened your eyes a bit more, you would see.





So to me it has become a points scoring exercise to you because I have explained, and you have dismissed my explanation, that it was not the people, but the situation that my original post was about.



You are posting back at me in this way because you think I am a certain poster which unfortunatly for you I am not.



For you to virtually tell me not to post in threads on something that is an open forum (and not for the first time is this something you have done to posters on this forum) makes me realise that you were not and are not really interested in anything anyone says because you just dismiss people at your whim without listening to their  explanation of the posts they make.



Which, going by all that, is reason enough for you to take heed of your original post and say nothing.

I'm posting back to you in the same manner as I would with any FM I disagree with, although your nasty comment about me has been noted. I wont let that shroud my judgement though.

My nasty comment?



Oh please, save us the drill hunny. If you come into a thread with the attitude of being the sole word on what should and shouldn't be posted then you should expect some sort of retaliation.



You asked me a question of whether I was comparing the two groups I gave you the answer that I wasn't, yet you just dismissed that answer and made up your own mind that I was. So why ask the question in the first place, it's a waste of bandwidth that us on a pay as you go dongle can do without.Also you seem to have dismissed my answer and explanation yet again and concentrated on what, for you, seems to be the crux of the matter.

How would they know? I'd have bloody well went especially if I  was on my period.

Surely - if you're overly picky about it - don't open up your house as a B&B. Would it be acceptable to say ........'I dont want black people in my house? 'If you dont like the legislation - it's obviously not for you.

I would be very picky about 'pay as you go dongles', tbh.