Although I was very young at the time, conetmporary newspapers show how irate many B&B owners were when it was clear that the incoming Race Relations Acts would outlaw their “No Blacks, No Irish” signs and even worse stop them turning such people away. Curiously, for many it seemed to be a faith issue – especially as far as the Irish were concerned (the “no blacks” rule usually seemed based in open racism, though many of these owners claimed that some of their best friends were black. Well, yes, naturally they would wouldn’t they?), with some people making it plain that not having Catholics under their roofs doing any “Papist rites” was a fundamental part of their religious freedom. To defend their positions, they could usually find a quote from somewhere in the Bible (usually Leviticus, anything can be “justified” if the right bits of Leviticus are mined). I suspect that nowadays there’d be little sympathy for anybody claiming that they had a right to put such signs back up in the name of religious freedom.
Trotting out the same old arguments to justify discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is no more justified than the old arguments to do the same based on faith or ethnic origin. Frankly, if people aren’t willing to put up all types of paying customers in their home, then they need a different way to earn a living than running a B&B.
Volunteer
Help in election
Report a problem
Join Us
Your views
Register to vote
Postal vote
Email updates
Chris Grayling gets my vote on this one.
Who would wish to be the next occupant of a room and bed just vacated by gay men? In many B&Bs the owner’s family, grandchildren, etc stay in the same rooms when visiting.
This is not solely a matter for religious beliefs. It isn’t acceptable for the State and political busybodies to tell us we must cheerfully tolerate disagreeable practices in our own homes.
Huhne makes himself look foolish jumping on the bandwagon to condemn Grayling for sticking up for ordinary folk’s rights.