Monday, 5 April 2010

How does Chris Grayling get out of this one?

I wrote about Chris Grayling on the 12th December. He had spoken out of turn and he has done so again. This time he has been recorded at a private meeting and he suggested that bed and breakfast owners should have the right to ban homosexual couples. He has been defended on the grounds of his voting record supporting gay rights (why is he not defending himself?) but his recent comments are at odds with the law. We can't discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. There may be many other reasons why we can discriminate but this isn't one of them.

It is a red herring to defend Mr Grayling on the grounds that it was a private meeting. He either supports the rights of bed and breakfast owners or he doesn't. He can't be defended on the grounds that the media are attacking the Tories. If a politician wishes to put forward views that are contentious then they will be reported.

Problems occur when the rights of Christians conflict with the rights of others. Christians must follow their conscience. If their role conflicts with their conscience then they must change their role. If we did no business with sinners then business would come to a halt. It is one thing to have an opinion and it is another to impose it.

Change the world


  1. The State and political busybodies have no business telling B&B operators that they must cheerfully put up with disagreeable practices in their own home. Besides, the law isn't as crystal clear as some people would have us believe.

    The LibDems should have resisted the temptation to jump on this grubby bandwagon. Grayling would do well to treat the fuss with the contempt it deserves.

  2. Thanks for your comments yorker and please continue to comment as I do enjoy political debate. I don't think that you are referring to discrimination which some see as offensive when you write about disagreeable practices.

    What is and is not the business of The State and of "political busybodies" is to some extent a matter of opinion, and I can respect that even if we have to differ on it. However, the law is a matter of fact, and I'm afraid it is pretty crystal clear. See 'The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007' in particular paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2).

    4.—(1) It is unlawful for a person (“A”) concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public of goods, facilities or services to discriminate against a person (“B”) who seeks to obtain or to use those goods, facilities or services—
    (a)by refusing to provide B with goods, facilities or services,
    (b)by refusing to provide B with goods, facilities or services of a quality which is the same as or similar to the quality of goods, facilities or services that A normally provides to—
    (i)the public, or
    (ii)a section of the public to which B belongs...
    (2) Paragraph (1) applies, in particular, to—
    (a)access to and use of a place which the public are permitted to enter,
    (b)accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment,