Okay, so I feel all dirty, but he is right.
BNP leader Nick Griffin has said people have the “right to discriminate”, after he put the address of a gay couple who won a landmark court ruling on Twitter.
The Christian couple at the centre of this case had their property rights overruled by the courts. That they were providing a service to the public is neither here nor there. It was their guest house, therefore their rules should apply and if gay couples don’t like it, they have the option of abiding by those rules and putting up with not sleeping in the same bed for the night or going elsewhere.
Yes, the Christian couple should have the right to discriminate on these grounds and the court’s decision is outrageous – especially the compensation of £1800 each for hurt feelings. These two were denied the liberty to sleep in the same bed for a night – someone else’s bed. This is not worth £1800 by any stretch of the imagination. All I can say is that they must have very delicate feelings to be worth £1800 and any slight sympathy I might have for them evaporated with this news. Now I merely hold them in contempt.
When we go out into the market place with our goods and services, we set out our terms and conditions of sale. Buyers can either accept or decline as is their prerogative. They may, if they wish, seek to negotiate changes to the conditions, but ultimately, the seller makes the final decision and may well suffer in the marketplace as a consequence. That is how it should be, anyway. Now, of course, that principle lies in tatters. And, for once, Nick Griffin is right.
The homosexuals in this case were – it has been alleged – operating for Stonewall, and targeted this guest house knowing they would be turned away. They took the court action out of spite. Bastards.
Yes, that’s usually the case. Stonewall hasn’t got much to do these days so it contents itself by raising money and finding B&B owners to persecute.
The disgusting courts go along with this, despite the asymmetry of allowing gay hotels and resorts to operate discriminatory entry policies.
Good point. Perhaps, if Griffin had been smarter, he’d have used the law as a weapon against these establishment?
Hmm, would it be acceptable for a hotel chain like Premier Inn to discriminate against gays in this way? Or even an independently-run 15-bed hotel?
Yes. Check the sign above the door….it says “Right of admission reserved”.
Yes. That’s how business and property rights are supposed to work. Any chain doing so would seriously damage their reputation and trade as a consequence, of course.
Yes. Although a big chain like that would probably not be bothered about such issues, they are less personal than a family run guest house, nevertheless, when you set foot on someone elses property you should be expected to abide by their rules.
Actually, it could become an issue. Some of them are experimenting with women-only sections in deference to certain people. They are wondering if they can legally refuse to let rooms to men, even if those rooms are available, having reserved a floor for women.
My bet is they can, so long as the man is heterosexual.
If your business is guaranteed by the government, i.e. a limited company, then you should not be allowed to discriminate. In this case I believe they were personally liable for any debts, therefore they should be free to discriminate.
From the BBC:
On Thursday, recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had “treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances”.
However, the recorder accepted that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.
So the recorder accepted that they were treated the same as unmarried couples but then didn’t! I’m confused!
The pair have just been on the BBC (again!) and said they got their deposit back. They then said they went to court because they were waiting for an apology. Presumably they already received that when they got their deposit back?
This will have similar effects to the Catholic adoption agency issue, to satisfy the vocal 10% of the 1% society loses out. I wonder, for instance, how many businesses have withdrawn their services because they can’t afford to accommodate non-existent ‘disabled’ customers? Perhaps there ought to be a cut-off point for small businesses in complying with these ‘equality’ laws?
As to this specific case, it does all smack of a Stonewall test case complete with a BBC PR job.
Indeed. Since homosexuality was de-criminalised, there is no longer any need for such an organisation. However, Stonewall will try to hang on by indulging in this kind of vexatious litigation to survive and justify its ongoing existence.
Indeed. Since homosexuality was de-criminalised, there is no longer any need for such an organisation
Homosexuality was fully decriminalised with the 2003 act. As late as 1999 a group of gay men were convicted and imprisoned for “acts of gross indecency” for having a threesome. The 1967 act said that sex must be in private and be bewteen only two persons. When I was in Oxford in 1980s, our college house along the Iffley Rd was raided by the filth because gay men lived there and they wanted to get us to admit that they were having sex in the house, which they construed as “in public”. Needless to say we didn’t say anything and they had to go away. Official tolerance for homosexuals is a very recent phenomenon
Yes? And? Stonewall is still past its sell by date.
Considering that gay men were still being prosecuted for sex in 1999, I’d say not. It’s only 12 years ago, FFS!
Yes? And? So? Twelve years ago – over a decade. History, past, gone, no longer relevant. Past its sell by date by twelve years. Job done, time for this nasty fake charity to pack up and go home. FFS!
Maybe the owners just did not want to take the risk of having shit stains on their bed linen
Thank god straight people can’t have anal sex, then where would we be?
Yep, people of every sexual orientation can be Equally as disgusting about hygiene when it’s someone else’s job to clean up the bed. 🙂
“The Christian couple at the center of this case had their property rights overruled by the courts.”
Property rights? What property rights? Ask any pub / club owner who wants an inside smoking area about property rights. Property rights only exist as far as the government / courts decide they will allow them to.
What you should say is that the government routinely violates our property rights. It is certainly not the case that property rights are granted by the government.
Property rights are entirely a legal construct. If the rule of law did not exist then property would belong to whoever was strong enough to take it from you. Ergo, it is entirely proper for the law to regulate property rights – e.g. require a licence for a gun or to enforce H&S arrangements on businesses serving food or to regulate smoking in businesses open to the public.
You are conflating civil and criminal law. The government does not confer property rights and has no business being involved in them.
Any business should have the absolute right to refuse to do business with a potential client for whatever reason they decide. Usually, of course, this refusal is around payment and is why I have refused business. I have also refused business because I am aware that the potential client is likely to damage my reputation.
You are conflating civil and criminal law. The government does not confer property rights and has no business being involved in them
The concept of property rights is entirely a legal construct, governed by both civil and criminal law. And the law does confer property rights by determining who may inherit from an estate, the law of primogeniture being the most extreme form of it.
Criminal law has no place being involved in property rights. Just because has parliament chosen to poke its nose in, doesn’t make the principle right – because, frankly, it isn’t.
For the real story, not the frenzied Marxist media view, go to the BNP website –
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/tweet-tweet-little-bird-gives-us-inside-story-nick-griffin-bb-owners-twitter-row
I’m not great fan of the BNP either but this case does raise issues of property rights. What about those gay hotels which are a bit sniffy about straight couples, shouldn’t they be subject to the law as well?
There were those in Stonewall who their used their position in the organisation to get honours and rise up in the civil services ‘diversityocracy’ under the last Labour govt. A gay civil service friend of mine said that the Stonewall types only seemed interested in advancing their own careers and prestige and did nothing when gay staff were harassed by Islamic colleagues.
“…and did nothing when gay staff were harassed by Islamic colleagues.”
I wish I could say I was surprised, but…
What about those gay hotels which are a bit sniffy about straight couples, shouldn’t they be subject to the law as well?
They are subject to the same law. Nothing to stop any heterosexual couple from going to one and asking for a room with a double bed. I doubt they would have any problems. But if they did they can complain just like the homosexual couple.
As with all things, My gaff – My rules!! Don’t like it, doors there ->->.
Was listening to R2 in car discussing this case, and woman from St Annes with guesthouse agreed with decision. She went on about not your place to judge etc etc. She then said being gay, it’s not illegal or anything, not like smoking….Words fucking fail!!
As with all things, My gaff – My rules!! Don’t like it, doors there
For a private dwelling, that was and still is the case. For a place of business open to the public, that never hasbeen the case. A B&B is a place of business.
A guest house is a private dwelling as well as a business. Refusing to allow non-married couples a double bed under their roof is a reasonable restriction and one that a reasonable person would accept as being within the remit of “my gaff, my rules”. These two were looking for a fight and were deliberately taking offence. They are nasty pieces of work, frankly.
I think you’ll find it is the case.
For example, if a known glue sniffer comes in my shop wanting to buy evostick, you telling me I can’t refuse to sell it to him?
I book into a known Jewish hotel, and arrive dressed as a SS camp guard, are you saying the owners have no right to refuse?
Or howabout you walk in my pub and begin annoying my customers, are you saying it would be illegal to refuse to serve you another drink and bar you?
I think you’ll find I’m within my rights to do any of the above.
Why are a series of gay hotels and resorts in Britain allowed to discriminate on the basis of:
– gender
– sexual orientation
– marital status
Can provide names if you wish. So far Key West explains that it gets round it by being a private members club. It’s high time Dingemans made sure that his clients similarly defined themselves, and the various Christian groups should make some bookings and then bring cases against providers.
We have the ridiculous situation where some animals are more equal than others.
For someone as anti-stonewall as I am, I don’t agree with him here. He needed to do this at the time, when they committed their crime, those two.
There are quite a few gay hotels that openly discriminate against non-gays on their website – notably the Chaps Hotel in Blackpool.
I don’t think it’s on for Griffin to give out their address though and write on Twitter “A British Justice team will come up to [their Huntington address] & give you [Black and Morgan] a … bit of drama” though. It’s a veiled threat of menace.
There are quite a few gay hotels that openly discriminate against non-gays on their website – notably the Chaps Hotel in Blackpool
Ay actual *evidence* that they have turned away heterosexual couples? That would have to be rather more than saying that they advertise themselves as an “exclusively” gay establishment.
I don’t think it’s on for Griffin to give out their address though and write on Twitter “A British Justice team will come up to [their Huntington address] & give you [Black and Morgan] a … bit of drama” though. It’s a veiled threat of menace
We can just imagine what the response would have been had a Muslim made that tweet instead of Britain’s favourite Nazi. He’d now be on remand wanting his crown court appearance. Apparently some people have more freedom of spoeech than others.
As I understand it, the guest house owners need only pay ÂŁ1 to each of the complainants. The remainder becomes a civil debt and the two homosexuals offended by the Christian B&B owners would have to take out a civil court proceeding for the remainder of the sum. Then, if they win that case, the B&B owners need only pay ÂŁ1 of that sum owed, etc. Perhaps even the cancerous, tunnel-visioned, disease of Stonewall may get fed up after a while? But then, you know how bitchy and vindictive homosexuals can be. You only have to look at Elton John.
Penseivat
Ho ho ho.
Stonewall. Tunnel visioned.
Could be, could be…
On a serious note, as others have said, the creeping rights of the minority who go out of their way to be offended.
Watch out for the elections in 2025 when the party with the least votes (Liberals – state funding for parties will have killed off all but the “big” 3)gets elected to government because the citizens have breached the Lib Dems uman rites
On a serious note, as others have said, the creeping rights of the minority who go out of their way to be offended
What about the creeping rights of the majority who go out of their way to be offended – such as those who had the Muslim lad prosecuted for saying that some dead soldiers should to hell?
Where is your evidence that the majority were offended?
“Now I merely hold them in contempt….”
I held them in contempt the moment they went to the law, rather than simply shrugging and taking their custom elsewhere…